Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools : A Methodology [1 ed.] 9789461660060, 9789058678010

Citation preview

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools A methodology

Veerle ROTS

LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

Published with the support of Universitaire Stichting van België

© 2010 by Leuven University Press / Universitaire Pers Leuven / Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium). All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers.

ISBN 978 90 5867 801 0 D / 2010 / 1869 / 24 NUR: 682 Cover design: Friedemann BVBA Cover illustration: Experimental schist working with a hand-held flint tool Lay-out: CO2 Premedia bv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research presented in this book relies on the doctoral research I performed during 1997-2002 at the Prehistoric Archaeology unit at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) under the supervision of Pierre M. Vermeersch. I thank him sincerely for his guidance, his input and the numerous discussions I had with him. I also owe very much to Philip Van Peer, for constructive comments and discussions during my doctoral research and afterwards, and for his critical attitude and encouragement. I am indebted to several other people for stimulating discussions and comments, among whom are Valérie Beugnier, Sylvie Beyries, Steven Brandt, Jean-Paul Caspar (†), Marc De Bie, Richard Fullagar, Philippe Muchez, George Odell, Marcel Otte, Hugues Plisson, Dick Stapert, Annelou Van Gijn, Bart Vanmontfort, and Harco Willems. Thanks also to my colleagues at the Prehistoric Archaeology Unit. Sincere thanks are due to the “Chercheurs de la Wallonie”, CETREP section (“Centre d’Étude des Techniques et de Recherche Expérimentale en Préhistoire”), attached to the Musée de la Préhistoire en Wallonie (Flémalle, Liège). Several of their members, amongst whom are Odette Baudoux, Claude Bawin, Christian Casseyas, Christian Lepers, Louis Pirnay, Philippe Pirson and Jean Speckens, contributed to the success of the experiments. I am particularly indebted to Louis Pirnay, Philippe Pirson and Odette Baudoux: without whose enormous efforts this research would not have been possible. I thank them with all my heart for the enthusiasm with which they performed the experiments, for their meticulous record-keeping, for their perennial cheerfulness and enthusiasm throughout this research, and for their warmth and generosity. Heartfelt thanks are also due to Fernand Collin for providing a stimulating and welcome environment at Ramioul. Warm gratitude goes to my family and friends, in particular to Koen, Eppo and Nuno, for their encouragements, affection and inspiration. I am indebted to the Onderzoeksfonds of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven for their financial support of this research. Veerle Rots Prehistoric Archaeology Unit, K.U.Leuven

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements List of figures List of plates List of tables (CD-rom) Glossary

v ix xv xx xxi

1. 1.1 1.2

Introduction Background Importance for archaeological interpretation

1 1 3

2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Research Methodology Research Strategy Hafting Arrangements: terminology and classification Hafting Materials Experimentation Method of Analysis

7 7 9 13 19 24

3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Prehension and Hafting Traces: dream or reality? Are prehension and hafting traces formed? At which stage are hafting traces formed? Can hafting wear be distinguished from wear produced by external factors? Can hafting wear be distinguished from use-wear? Can hafting wear be distinguished from other prehensile wear? Does hand-held use result in prehension wear with a recurrent pattern? Does hafted use result in hafting wear with a recurrent pattern? Are prehension and hafting traces interpretable? Conclusion: are prehension and hafting traces a reality?

37 37 40 42 47 48 56 59 66 71

4. 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Prehension Traces – Dominant Variable: material worked Schist working Fire making Hide working Conclusion

73 73 75 75 75

5. 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Hafting Traces – Dominant Variables I: use motion and material worked Influence of use motion on the formation process of hafting traces Influence of the material worked on the formation process of hafting traces Discussion Conclusion

77 77 106 118 121

6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Hafting Traces – Dominant Variables II: hafting material and hafting arrangement Influence of haft material on the process of hafting trace formation Influence of binding material on the formation process of hafting traces Influence of hafting arrangement on the formation process of hafting traces Influence of use of wrapping on the formation process of hafting traces Influence of use of resin on the formation process of hafting traces Discussion Conclusion

123 123 134 139 157 161 166 172

7. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

Hafting Traces – Secondary Variables Raw material coarseness Tool morphology Retouch Use duration Tool protrusion from the haft Experimenter Conclusion

173 173 178 180 180 181 181 181

8. 8.1 8.2

Indirect Evidence of Hafting Use-wear traces Fractures

183 183 185

9. 9.1 9.2 9.3

Blind Test Results Discussion: interpretative potential per method Conclusion

189 189 194 195

10. 10.1 10.2 10.3

Discussion Relevance of functional studies including hafting Examining prehensile wear in practice Traits important to include in any wear recording system

197 197 198 200

11.

General Conclusions

203

ANNEX I: trace attributes ANNEX II: general table of experiments

207 213

References Plates

227 239

LIST OF FIGURES

Abbreviations and codes: see chapter 2, Annexes and/or CD-rom. Figures based on tables 4 and 5 include data of which the first two digits refer to the trace cause and the third digit refers to the trace intensity on a scale of 1-4 (8: not relevant, 9: analysis is impossible). Some of these figures include only the last digit. CHAPTER 1 Figure 1.1. Flow chart for hafted stone tools (see also Rots 2003) CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.1. Direct contact between stone tool and haft. The stopping ridge keeps the tool in place during use Figure 2.2. Stone tool in an indirect hafting arrangement. The leather wrapping strengthens the fixing of the tool and prevents the bindings from being cut Figure 2.3. Experimental scraping (latero-distal juxtaposed hafting) and chiselling (terminal juxtaposed hafting on straight handle) Figure 2.4. Overview of the advantages / disadvantages of both a juxtaposed and a male hafting Figure 2.5. Overview of the appropriate uses of both a juxtaposed and a male hafting Figure 2.6. Size measurements on hafts (LD= juxtaposed latero-distal haft, L= lateral hafting, M= male haft, MS= male split haft). Details explained in the text Figure 2.7. Summary of the experiments Figure 2.8. Hafting arrangements used Figure 2.9. Division into different tool parts for hafted tools (dorsal face= left, ventral face= right) Figure 2.10. Tool measurements Figure 2.11. Scar morphology categories Figure 2.12. Scar distribution categories Figure 2.13. Scar pattern categories Figure 2.14. Example of abstract figure for recording of trace pattern CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.1. Exp. 25/1, hand-held burin: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent scarring that is produced as a result of contact with the hand Figure 3.2. Exp. 25/2, burin wrapped with bindings: the transverse line represents the haft limit; the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.3. Exp. 25/3, burin wrapped with bindings: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.4. Exp. 25/4, burin hafted in male split antler: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.5. Exp. 25/5, burin hafted in male antler: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.6. Exp. 1/10, scraper hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft, with its ventral face in contact with the haft: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.7. Exp. 9/2, scraper hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.8. Exp. 9/3, blade hafted on a juxtaposed antler haft: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting Figure 3.9. Hafting polish formation during hafting process (intensity on a scale of 1-4; 8: not relevant; 9: analysis is impossible) Figure 3.10. Hafting scarring formation during hafting process (intensity on a scale of 1-4; 8: not relevant; 9: analysis is impossible) Figure 3.11. Scarring per prehensile mode (first 2 digits refer to trace cause, cf. annex I; last digit to intensity on scale of 1-4; cf. chapter 2) Figure 3.12. Exp. 19/1A Figure 3.13. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 19/5A

x

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Figure 3.14. Exp. 19/3A Figure 3.15. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 19/3A Figure 3.16. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 25/4 Figure 3.17. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 25/5 Figure 3.18. Exp. 19/5B Figure 3.19. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 25/2 Figure 3.20. Microscopic traces on exp. 19/1B Figure 3.21. Microscopic traces on exp. 19/3C Figure 3.22. Exp. 19/3C Figure 3.23. Traits for distinguishing between prehensile modes (assuming terminal / latero-distal hafting) Figure 3.24. Polish intensity per (relevant) tool part Figure 3.25. Exp. 22/59: prehension polish pattern from grooving wood Figure 3.26. Microscopic prehension polish pattern from perforating bone Figure 3.27. Juxtaposed direct hafting on wood Figure 3.28. Hafting polish pattern for a juxtaposed direct hafting on wood Figure 3.29. Hafting polish pattern for a male split direct hafting in antler Figure 3.30. Hafting with standard leather bindings Figure 3.31. Male split wooden hafting, fixed with resin Figure 3.32. Male direct hafting Figure 3.33. Hafting polish pattern for a male direct hafting Figure 3.34. Male indirect hafting Figure 3.35. Male indirect hafting in wood Figure 3.36. Results preliminary blind test (0= wrong, 1= correct, 0,5= partially correct interpretation) CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.1. Experimental details (based on table 1.1) Figure 5.2. Macroscopic scarring intensity (scale of 1=low to 4=extensive) (Abbreviations: see chapter 2 or annex I; grey values correspond to relative intensity) Figure 5.3. Macroscopic gloss intensity (on scale of 1 to 4) Figure 5.4. Polish intensity per tool part (on scale of 1 to 4; italic = short use) Figure 5.5. Number of trace IDs per polish development and extension category and per tool part Figure 5.6. Hafting polish pattern on adzing tools Figure 5.7. Hafting polish pattern on scraping tools Figure 5.8. Hafting polish pattern on grooving tools Figure 5.9. Hafting polish development: number of tool parts per category Figure 5.10. Hafting polish interpretability: the total number of tool parts per interpretability level, the average number of tool parts per tool, and the percentage per category (to prevent a distortion based on the number of tools included per use motion) Figure 5.11. Hafting scarring intensity per tool part Figure 5.12. Hafting scarring pattern on adzing tools Figure 5.13. Number of damaged tool parts per use motion Figure 5.14. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category and per use motion Figure 5.15. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category and per use motion Figure 5.16. Number of tool parts per scar termination category and per use motion Figure 5.17. Number of tool parts per scar size and depth category, and per use motion Figure 5.18. Number of tool parts per scar definition and intrusiveness category, and per use motion Figure 5.19. Number of tool parts per distribution category and per use motion Figure 5.20. Bright spot intensity per tool part (on scale of 1 to 4) Figure 5.21. Number of tool parts per development and linkage category and per use motion Figure 5.22. Striation intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) Figure 5.23. Number of tool parts per striation orientation category and per use motion Figure 5.24. Experimental details (based on table 1.1) Figure 5.25. Polish intensity per hafted tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) (8= non-existent; 9= analysis is impossible) Figure 5.26. Number of trace IDs per development and extension category and per tool part (codes: see annex I. polish extension; abbreviations: see chapter 2) Figure 5.27. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) Figure 5.28. Number of trace IDs per scarring intensity and interpretability category and per tool part (non-interpretable scarring is excluded) Figure 5.29. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) Figure 5.30. Striation intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

LIST OF FIGURES

xi

Figure 5.31. Number of tool parts per striation orientation category Figure 5.32. Polish intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) Figure 5.33. Scarring intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) Figure 5.34. Experimental details Figure 5.35. Polish intensity per tool part Figure 5.36. Number of trace IDs per development and extension category and per tool part (Codes: see annex I. polish extension; in italics: extensions subtracted from one subtotal and added to the other) Figure 5.37. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.38. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category Figure 5.39. Bright spot intensity per tool part Figure 5.40. Striation intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.41. Polish intensity per tool part Figure 5.42. Number of trace IDs per development and extent category (Codes: see annex I. polish extension) Figure 5.43. Hafting polish pattern on scraping and grooving tools Figure 5.44. Scarring intensity per tool part Figure 5.45. Experimental details Figure 5.46. Polish intensity per tool part Figure 5.47. Number of trace IDs per polish development and extension category and per tool part (in italic: subtracted from subtotal 2; Codes: see annex I. polish extension) Figure 5.48. Hafting polish pattern on adzing and chiselling tools Figure 5.49. Scarring intensity per tool part Figure 5.50. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.51. Polish intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.52. Number of trace IDs per polish development and extension category and per tool part (in italics: subtracted from one subtotal and added to the other; Codes: see annex I. polish extension) Figure 5.53. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.54. Number of tool parts per striation orientation category Figure 5.55. Experimental details Figure 5.56. Polish intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.57. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.58. Distinctive traits per use motion Figure 5.59. Experimental details Figure 5.60. Macroscopic scarring intensity per tool part Figure 5.61. Number of tool parts per polish development and extent category (Codes: see annex I. polish extension) Figure 5.62. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category Figure 5.63. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.64. Number of tool parts per scar interpretability category Figure 5.65. Scar size frequency Figure 5.66. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.67. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.68. Macroscopic gloss intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.69. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.70. Number of tool parts per scar intensity category Figure 5.71. Number of tool parts per scar size category Figure 5.72. Number of damaged tool parts per scar distribution category Figure 5.73. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.74. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category Figure 5.75. Experimental details Figure 5.76. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.77. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.78. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.79. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.80. Polish intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.81. Number of damaged tool parts per interpretation category Figure 5.82. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category Figure 5.83. Experimental details Figure 5.84. Macroscopic scarring per hafted tool part Figure 5.85. Macroscopic gloss per hafted tool part Figure 5.86. Polish intensity per hafted tool part

xii

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Figure 5.87. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.88. Number of damaged tool parts per interpretability category Figure 5.89. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category Figure 5.90. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.91. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 5.92. Number of tool parts per scar interpretability category Figure 5.93. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category Figure 5.94. Number of tools per certainty level and per use motion (macroscopic) Figure 5.95. Number of tools per certainty level and per use (macroscopic) Figure 5.96. Number of tools per certainty level and per use motion (macroscopic) Figure 5.97. Number of tools per certainty level and per use (macroscopic) Figure 5.98. Number of tools per certainty level and per use motion (low power) CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.1. Experimental details (based on table 1.1) (see annex II) Figure 6.2. Number of tool parts per location Figure 6.3. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category Figure 6.4. Number of tool parts per polish development, morphology and brightness category Figure 6.5. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category Figure 6.6. Number of tool parts per polish extension category Figure 6.7. Number of trace IDs per scar initiation category Figure 6.8. Experimental details Figure 6.9. Macroscopic scarring per hafted tool part Figure 6.10. Number of tool parts per polish location Figure 6.11. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category Figure 6.12. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.13. Experimental details Figure 6.14. Number of relevant tool parts per location Figure 6.15. Number of relevant tool parts per polish development and linkage category Figure 6.16. Number of tool parts per interpretability category Figure 6.17. Number of relevant tool parts per polish extension category Figure 6.18. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category Figure 6.19. Number recorded per scar initiation category Figure 6.20. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.21. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category Figure 6.22. Number of tool parts per bright spot development and linkage category Figure 6.23. Experimental details Figure 6.24. Number recorded per relevant tool part Figure 6.25. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category Figure 6.26. Number of tool parts per polish extension category Figure 6.27. Number of tool parts per scar initiation category Figure 6.28. Number of tool parts per scar termination category Figure 6.29. Experimental details Figure 6.30. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category Figure 6.31. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category Figure 6.32. Number of tool parts per polish extension category Figure 6.33. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.34. Number recorded per striation orientation Figure 6.35. Distinctive trace attributes per haft material Figure 6.36. Experimental details Figure 6.37. Number of tool parts per polish development category Figure 6.38. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category Figure 6.39. Number of tool parts per scar initiation category Figure 6.40. Experimental details Figure 6.41. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category Figure 6.42. Number of tool parts per scar termination category Figure 6.43. Experimental details Figure 6.44. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category Figure 6.45. Number recorded per scar morphology category

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 6.46. Number recorded per scar initiation category Figure 6.47. Distinctive traits for binding material identifications Figure 6.48. Experimental details Figure 6.49. Macroscopic scarring per relevant tool part Figure 6.50. Polish intensity per hafted tool part Figure 6.51. Average of polished tool parts per tool Figure 6.52. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 6.53. Number recorded per scar morphology category Figure 6.54. Number recorded per detailed scar morphology category Figure 6.55. Number recorded per scar initiation category Figure 6.56. Impact from the binding direction Figure 6.57. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.58. Number recorded per scar size category Figure 6.59. Number recorded per scar depth category Figure 6.60. Number recorded per scar intrusiveness category Figure 6.61. Number recorded per scar distribution category Figure 6.62. Number recorded per scar pattern category Figure 6.63. Number of tool parts per interpretability level Figure 6.64. Distinctive scar traits based on male-hafted tools Figure 6.65. Number of tool parts per derived cause and interpreted responsible material Figure 6.66. Experimental details Figure 6.67. Macroscopic scarring intensity per relevant tool part Figure 6.68. Polish intensity per relevant tool part Figure 6.69. Number of polished tool parts per hafting arrangement Figure 6.70. Number of polished tool parts per cause Figure 6.71. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category Figure 6.72. Relationship between the direction of the pressure exerted on the edge and the resulting scar morphology Figure 6.73. Number of tool parts per detailed scar morphology category Figure 6.74. Number of tool parts per scar initiation category Figure 6.75. Number of tool parts per scar termination category Figure 6.76. Number of tool parts per scar intrusiveness category Figure 6.77. Number of tool parts per scar distribution category Figure 6.78. Retouch presence and coarseness per relevant tool part (scale 1 to 4). Presence of binding scars per tool part (figures in bold with double frame) Figure 6.79. Distinctive traits per hafting arrangement Figure 6.80. Experimental details Figure 6.81. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part Figure 6.82. Number recorded per polish development and linkage category Figure 6.83. Number of tool parts per scar location Figure 6.84. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category Figure 6.85. Number recorded per scar morphology Figure 6.86. Number recorded per scar initiation category Figure 6.87. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.88. Distinctive traits for the identification of a wrapping use (for juxtaposed arrangements) Figure 6.89. Experimental details Figure 6.90. Number of tool parts per location Figure 6.91. Number of tool parts per polish development, linkage and responsible material category Figure 6.92. Number of tool parts per location Figure 6.93. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.94. Number recorded per scar size category Figure 6.95. Experimental details Figure 6.96. Macroscopic gloss intensity per relevant tool part Figure 6.97. Number of tool parts per polish location Figure 6.98. Number of trace IDs per polish development, linkage & responsible material category Figure 6.99. Number of tool parts per polish location Figure 6.100. Number recorded per scar morphology category Figure 6.101. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 6.102. Distinctive traits for identifying the use of resin Figure 6.103. Number of tools per haft type

xiii

xiv

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Figure 6.104. Number of tools per interpretability category Figure 6.105. Number of tools per haft type Figure 6.106. Number of tools per interpretability category Figure 6.107. Number of tools per hafting arrangement category Figure 6.108. Number of tools per haft type category Figure 6.109. Number of tools per haft category and haft contact (wrapped tools are separated from those attached to a “real” handle) Figure 6.110. Number of tools per interpretability category Figure 6.111. Number of tools per haft type category Figure 6.112. Number of tools per haft type category Figure 6.113. Number of tools per hafting arrangement Figure 6.114. Number of tools per haft type Figure 6.115. Number of tools per haft type Figure 6.116. Number of tools per haft type Figure 6.117. Number of tools per haft type Figure 6.118. Number of tools per haft type CHAPTER 7 Figure 7.1. Experimental details (see annex I) Figure 7.2. Macroscopic gloss intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1=low to 4=extensive) Figure 7.3. Polish intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1=low to 4=extensive) Figure 7.4. Scarring intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1=low to 4=extensive) Figure 7.5. Number of damaged tool parts per location Figure 7.6. Number recorded per scar termination category Figure 7.7. Bright spot intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1 to 4) Figure 7.8. Number of tools per certainty level and grain size Figure 7.9. Number of tool per certainty level and grain size Figure 7.10. Polish concentration and intrusion per cross-section (vertical arrow = polish concentration; horizontal or oblique arrow = polish intrusion; two arrows = prominent concentration; bold and large arrow = more important concentration / intrusion) Figure 7.11. Exp. 1/2: fracture in haft during wood adzing Figure 7.12. Number of fractures that occurred during hafted use in the haft or at the haft limit per longitudinal curvature category Figure 7.13. Stopping ridge on juxtaposed haft Figure 7.14. Number of tools per certainty level and per relative use duration CHAPTER 8 Figure 8.1. Use-wear distributions per prehensile mode and/or per hafting arrangement Figure 8.2. Fracture initiation per cause Figure 8.3. Fracture terminations per cause Figure 8.4. Fracture initiations per cause Figure 8.5. Fracture terminations per cause CHAPTER 9 Figure 9.1. Macroscopic test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant or not provided; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation) Figure 9.2. Low Power test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation) Figure 9.3. High Power test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation)

LIST OF PLATES

Note: References to traces included between brackets (e.g., ED6, P2) refer to detailed tables (see tables 6, CD-rom). CHAPTER 2 Pl. 1: natural flint surface of exp. 17/11 (200x) Pl. 2: natural flint surface of exp. 17/12 (200x) Pl. 3: light scarring (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x) Pl. 4: considerable scarring (ED12) on the dorsal medial fracture edge of the distal part of exp. 1/2 (12x) Pl. 5: scalar scar (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 10/13 (25x) Pl. 6: trapezoidal scars (ED1) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/1C (prehension) (50x) Pl. 7: triangular scar (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 1/1 (50x) Pl. 8: rectangular, elongated scar (ED4) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 1/4 (50x) Pl. 9: sliced scar (ED12) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 1/4 (25x) Pl. 10: edge crushing on the ventral medial fracture edge (ED17 and 18) of the distal part of exp. 1/2 (6x) Pl. 11: balloon-type scalar scar (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 26/13 (50x) Pl. 12: diffuse, wide initiation of oblique scar (ED3) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 1/4 (25x) Pl. 13: sliced into scalar scar (ED8) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/3A (25x) Pl. 14: sliced into scalar scar (ED4) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 1/4 (50x) Pl. 15: narrow into wide scar, step-terminating (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 26/5 (50x) Pl. 16: narrow initiation of feather-terminating scalar scar (ED6) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 10/2 (50x) Pl. 17: feather-terminating scalar scar with wide initiation (ED1) on the distal part of the ventral medial left edge of exp. 10/23 (50x) Pl. 18: twisted initiation of sliced into scalar scar (ED3) on the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 19/2A (50x) Pl. 19: feather-terminating scalar scars with wide initiations (ED1) on the distal part of the ventral medial left edge (25x) Pl. 20: hinge-terminating scar (ED5) on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 1/11 (12x) Pl. 21: vertical terminating sliced scar (ED12) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 1/4 (25x) Pl. 22: superposing scars (ED2) on the dorsal most proximal left edge of exp. 1/6 (12x) Pl. 23: small scars (ED 8) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 10/18 (25x) Pl. 24: very large vertical terminating sliced scars (ED12) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 1/4 (12x) Pl. 25: flat, superficial feather-terminating scalar scar (ED7) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 10/17 (50x) Pl. 26: deep hinge-terminating trapezoidal scar (ED5) on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 10/17 (12x) Pl. 27: intrusive feather-terminating scalar scar (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 10/17 (50x) Pl. 28: moderate to abrupt terminating scars on the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 10/20 (50x) Pl. 29: evenly sized feather-terminating scalar scars with wide initiations (ED1) on the proximal part of the ventral medial left edge of exp. 10/23 (25x) Pl. 30: crushed initiation of feather-terminating scalar scar (ED5) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 10/2 (25x) Pl. 31: discontinuous wood haft polish (P2) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 1/2 (200x) Pl. 32: continuous wood haft polish (P6) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 1/1 (200x) Pl. 33: rough wrapping polish (leather wrapping on wooden haft; P3) distributed along microtopography on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 1/7 (200x) Pl. 34: antler haft polish (P2) limited to the outer border on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 10/26 (200x) Pl. 35: antler haft polish (P3) limited to the outer border on a ridge crossing on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 10/26 (200x) Pl. 36: vegetal binding polish (P7) distributed along the microtopgraphy on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 9/4 (on ridge crossing) (200x) Pl. 37: straight hafting striation (S3) with a perpendicular orientation on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 9/4 (200x) Pl. 38: straight hafting striation (S6) with a perpendicular orientation on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 9/1 (200x) Pl. 39: hafting striations with several orientations (S2) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 9/1 (200x) Pl. 40: bright spot in striation (S8) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 10/22 (200x) Pl. 41: hafting bright spots (BS2) associated with scarring on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 1/1 (200x) Pl. 42: hafting bright spots (BS4) within scar on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 10/23 (200x) Pl. 43: hafting bright spots (BS4) associated with scars on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 10/23 (200x) Pl. 44: hafting bright spot associated with striation (S7) on the ventral most proximal surface of exp. 10/22 (200x) Pl. 45: early stage of hafting bright spot formation (BS2) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 10/26 (200x) Pl. 46: hafting bright spots (BS1) on the dorsal proximal surface of exp. 10/26 (200x)

xvi

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 47: hafting bright spots (BS13) on the ventral medial edge of exp. 10/22 (200x) Pl. 48: well-developed, extensive hafting bright spots (BS2) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 9/1 (200x) Pl. 49: well-developed, extensive hafting bright spots (BS11) on the dorsal medial surface (near fracture) of exp. 10/5 (200x) CHAPTER 3 Pl. 50: hafting scarring (ED4) on the distal part of the ventral medial right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x) Pl. 51: hafting scarring (ED5) on the most proximal part of the ventral medial right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x) Pl. 52: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/4 (50x) Pl. 53: hafting scarring (ED5) on the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 25/5 (25x) Pl. 54: hafting scarring (ED6) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 25/5 (50x) Pl. 55: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 25/5 (50x) Pl. 56: faint retouch polish on the ventral distal point of exp. 27/12 (200x) Pl. 57: retouch polish on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 27/15 (100x) Pl. 58: retouch polish on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 27/15 (100x) Pl. 59: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal bulb of 28/1 from intense wood contact (200x) Pl. 60: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 27/16 from flint-on-flint friction (200x) Pl. 61: hafting bright spot (BS1) associated with scarring on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 27/16 (200x) Pl. 62: light knapping polish on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 19/3A from the friction against the core upon detachment (200x) Pl. 63: intense knapping polish (BS1) on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 17/14 from the friction against the core upon detachment (200x) Pl. 64: knapping polish on the butt of exp. 19/3A (200x) Pl. 65: faint retouch polish on the ventral distal right edge of exp. 17/17 (200x) Pl. 66: retouch polish on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 17/13 (200x) Pl. 67: friction bright spot (BS2) on the dorsal proximal right ridge of exp. 17/1 from anvil contact during retouching (200x) Pl. 68: friction striation (S2) on the dorsal distal ridge of exp. 17/14 from anvil contact (200x) Pl. 69: natural surface of fine-grained grey flint on exp. 17/18 (200x) Pl. 70: natural surface on coarse-grained flint of exp. 22/66 (200x) Pl. 71: natural surface of yellow Grand Pressigny flint of exp. 22/64 (200x) Pl. 72: natural surface on fine-grained flint of exp. 27/11 (200x) Pl. 73: small scar that detached upon hammer impact from retouching, associated with retouch striation (S1), visible on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 17/1 (200x) Pl. 74: scarring on exp. 19/5B from anvil contact during retouching (25x) Pl. 75: knapping bright spot on the bulbar ridges of exp. 17/17 from the friction against the core upon detach (200x) Pl. 76: knapping striation on the butt of exp. 16/18 from the friction with an antler hammer (50x) Pl. 77: knapping striations on the impact point of the butt of exp. 17/13 from the friction with a stone hammer (200x) Pl. 78: knapping striation on the butt of exp. 16/18 from the friction with an antler hammer (100x) Pl. 79: striation on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 17/4 from the friction against the core upon detach (200x) Pl. 80: retouch striation (S1) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 17/1 (200x) Pl. 81: retouch striation (S2) within the concavity of a dorsal scar on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 17/1 (200x) Pl. 82: retouch striations on the ventral edge of exp. 17/19 from the impact of a hard stone hammer (200x) Pl. 83: retouch striations on the ventral edge of exp. 27/11 from the impact of a soft stone hammer (200x) Pl. 84: retouch striations on the ventral edge of exp. 27/15 from the impact of a soft stone hammer (200x) Pl. 85: retouch striation within the concavity of a dorsal scar on the ventral edge of exp. 17/18 from the impact of an antler hammer (100x) Pl. 86: complete retouch striation within the concavity of a dorsal scar on the ventral edge of exp. 17/18 from the impact of an antler hammer (100x) (assembled picture of striation in Pl. 85) Pl. 87: anvil scarring associated with striations on the dorsal distal ridge of exp. 17/14 (200x) Pl. 88: bright spot on exp. 11/5 from transport for 18 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x) Pl. 89: polish on exp. 11/3 from transport for 21 days in a loose hanging leather bag with addition of schist fragments (200x) Pl. 90: polish on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 11/37 from transport for 88 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x) Pl. 91: polish mixed with bright spots on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 11/37 from transport for 88 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x) Pl. 92: polish on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 11/3 from transport for 21 days in a loose hanging leather bag with addition of schist fragments (200x) Pl. 93: bright spot on the ventral distal point of exp. 11/37 from transport for 88 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x) Pl. 94: polish on exp. 11/36 from transport for 98 days in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x) Pl. 95: polish on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 11/4 from transport for 14 days in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x)

LIST OF PLATES

xvii

Pl. 96: bright spot on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 11/36 from transport for 98 days in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x) Pl. 97: polish on exp. 11/74 from transport for 120 days while rolled in a piece of leather and placed in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x) Pl. 98: bright spot on the ventral distal edge of exp. 11/74 from transport for 120 days while rolled in a piece of leather and placed in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x) Pl. 99: first stage of bright spot formation from a 2 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/4 (200x) Pl. 100: second stage of bright spot formation from a 5 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/1 (200x) Pl. 101: third stage of bright spot formation from a 10 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/2 (200x) Pl. 102: third stage of bright spot formation from a 10 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/2 (200x) Pl. 103: bright spot from a 2 minute friction in wet conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/5 (200x) Pl. 104: clear impact of use-wear polish visible on the ventral medial left edge of a tool used to cut reed (200x) Pl. 105: use-wear polish from grooving fresh cattle bone on the dorsal burin tip of exp. 19/1C (200x) Pl. 106: gradual intrusion of the use-wear polish into the surface and directional aspect visible on the ventral medial left edge of a tool used to cut reed (200x) Pl. 107: use-wear polish on the dorsal distal edge of exp. 22/70 from cutting cereals (200x) Pl. 108: clear rounding associated with use-wear polish on the scraper-head of exp. 16/19 used to scrape tanned sheep hide (1 hour) (200x) Pl. 109: use-wear polish on the ventral distal scraper-head of exp. 16/18 from scraping wetted sheep hide (200x) Pl. 110: use-wear polish on the ventral distal edge of exp. 20/8 from scraping hide on wood (200x) Pl. 111: bright spot integrated in hide use-wear polish on ventral scraper-head (200x) Pl. 112: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 19/1A from friction with a wooden haft (200x) Pl. 113: limited leather hafting polish (P7) on the dorsal proximal edge of exp. 19/1A (200x) Pl. 114: limited leather hafting polish (P9) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 19/1A (200x) Pl. 115: wood haft polish (P3) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 19/5A (200x) Pl. 116: wood haft polish (P5) on the ventral bulb of exp. 19/5A (200x) Pl. 117: hafting bright spots (BS3) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/5A (200x) Pl. 118: hafting bright spots (BS4) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 19/5A (200x) Pl. 119: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/3A (200x) Pl. 120: hafting scarring including a sliced into scalar scar (ED8) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/3A (12x) Pl. 121: hafting scarring (ED9) on the distal part of the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/3A (50x) Pl. 122: hafting scarring (ED5) on the ventral most proximal right edge of exp. 19/3A (25x) Pl. 123: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 19/3A (200x) Pl. 124: hafting scarring on (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/4 (50x) Pl. 125: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 25/5 (50x) Pl. 126: leather hafting polish (P6) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 19/3B (200x) Pl. 127: friction hafting polish (P10) associated with ventral scarring on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 25/2 (200x) Pl. 128: hafting striation (S1) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 25/2 (200x) Pl. 129: hafting striation (S2) on the dorsal medial right surface of exp. 25/2 (200x) Pl. 130: hafting scarring (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x) Pl. 131: hafting scarring (ED7) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/1B (25x) Pl. 132: prehension scarring (ED4) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/1C (50x) Pl. 133: prehension scarring (ED1) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/1C (50x) Pl. 134: prehension antler polish (P4) on the most proximal part of the ventral distal right edge of exp. 19/3C (200x) Pl. 135: prehension antler polish (P5) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 19/3C (200x) Pl. 136: prehension antler polish (P6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/3C (200x) Pl. 137: prehension scarring (ED5) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/3C (50x) Pl. 138: prehension antler polish (P2) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 19/3C (200x) Pl. 139: prehension antler polish (P6) on the dorsal distal left ridge of exp. 19/5C (200x) Pl. 140: prehension antler polish (P9) on the dorsal distal right ridge of exp. 19/5C (200x) Pl. 141: prehension antler polish (P17) on the dorsal proximal butt of exp. 19/5C (200x) Pl. 142: prehension antler polish (P5) on the right corner of the ventral proximal butt of exp. 19/5C (200x) Pl. 143: prehension scarring on the proximal left edge of exp. 25/1 (50x) Pl. 144: wood prehension polish (P5) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/59 (200x) Pl. 145: wood prehension polish (P14) on the distal part of the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 22/59 (200x)

xviii

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 146: wood prehension polish (P2) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 22/59 (200x) Pl. 147: prehension bright spot (BS1) on the distal part of the ventral proximal surface of exp. 22/63 (well-developed wood polish) (200x) Pl. 148: prehension bone polish (P4) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 22/85 (200x) Pl. 149: prehension bone polish (P2) on the distal part of the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/86 (200x) Pl. 150: prehension bone polish (P9) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/86 (200x) Pl. 151: wood haft polish (P2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/31 (200x) Pl. 152: wood haft polish (P4) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 22/31 (200x) Pl. 153: leather binding polish (P8) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/33 (200x) Pl. 154: resin friction polish (P4) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/45 (200x) Pl. 155: resin friction polish (P4) and bright spots (BS3) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/45 (200x) Pl. 156: resin friction bright spot (BS1) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/46 (200x) Pl. 157: bone polish from friction with particles of the material worked within the hafting arrangement of exp. 22/17 (200x) Pl. 158: bright spot (BS1) from friction with particles of the material worked within the hafting arrangement of exp. 22/16 (well-developed bone polish) (200x) Pl. 159: hafting bright spot (BS3) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/19 (well-developed antler haft polish) (200x) Pl. 160: hafting striation (S1) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/20 from friction with the antler haft (200x) Pl. 161: resin friction bright spot (BS1) on the ventral most proximal edge of exp. 22/22 from de-hafting (200x) Pl. 162: resin friction bright spot (BS3) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/22 from de-hafting (200x) Pl. 163: resin friction bright spot (BS4) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 22/22 from de-hafting (200x) Pl. 164: hafting striation (S2) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/64 from resin friction upon de-hafting (200x) Pl. 165: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/64 from resin friction upon de-hafting (200x) Pl. 166: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 22/65 from flint-on-flint friction (200x) Pl. 167: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the most distal part of the ventral proximal left edge of BT1 (100x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 168: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the most distal part of the ventral proximal left surface of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 169: hafting bright spot (BS4) on the dorsal medial ridge of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 170: hafting polish (P11) on the dorsal medial ridge of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 171: hafting polish (P12) on the dorsal proximal ridge of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 172: use-wear polish on the tip of BT2 from drilling schist (200x) (correct interpretation) Pl. 173: use-wear polish on the ventral scraper-head of BT3 from scraping tanned leather (100x) (only partially correct interpretation) Pl. 174: use-wear polish and scarring on the ventral tip of BT4 from grooving antler (100x) (correct interpretation) Pl. 175: use-wear polish on the ventral edge of BT4 from grooving antler (200x) (correct interpretation) Pl. 176: use-wear polish on the ventral scraper-head BT5 from scraping schist (200x) (correct interpretation) Pl. 177: use-wear scarring on the ventral scraper-head of BT5 from scraping schist (100x) (correct interpretation) Pl. 178: hafting striation on the ventral proximal edge of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as due to retouching) Pl. 179: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal surface of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 180: wood haft polish (P9) on the dorsal medial edge of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 181: wood haft polish (P5) on the dorsal ridge of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension) Pl. 182: use-wear polish on the ventral edge of BT6 from grooving wood (200x) (correct interpretation) Pl. 183: binding polish (P1) associated with scarring marking the haft limit on the ventral medial left edge of BT6 (200x) (correctly inferred limit) Pl. 184: hafting striations (S2) parallel and just next to the ridge of BT6, associated with wood haft polish (P10) (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as antler) Pl. 185: use-wear polish on the ventral scraper-head of BT7 from scraping hide positioned on a piece of wood (200x) (correctly inferred) Pl. 186: antler haft polish (P11) on the right side of the central dorsal ridge of BT7 (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as wood polish) Pl. 187: antler haft polish (P16) on the left side of the central dorsal ridge of BT7 (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as wood polish) Pl. 188: hafting polish (P17) at the exact haft limit on the dorsal medial right edge of BT7 (200x) (correctly inferred limit) CHAPTER 4 Pl. 189. use-wear on the ventral scraper-head of exp. 13/8 from scraping schist (30’) (200x) Pl. 190. use-wear on the ventral scraper-head of exp. 13/8 from scraping schist (30’) (200x) Pl. 191: schist prehension polish (P2) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 12/14 (scraping) (200x) Pl. 192: schist prehension polish (P3) on the dorsal distal ridge of exp. 12/14 (scraping) (200x)

LIST OF PLATES

Pl. 193: schist prehension bright spot (BS4) on the ventral proximal surface of exp. 12/1 (perforating) (200x) Pl. 194: well-developed integrated schist prehension bright spot (BS5) on a ridge of the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 12/1 (perforating) (200x) Pl. 195: well-developed pyrite prehension polish (P9) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 12/17 (fire making) (200x) Pl. 196: pyrite prehension polish (P2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 12/17 (100x) (fire making) (200x) CHAPTER 5 Pl. 197: antler haft polish (P2) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/39 (200x) Pl. 198: wood haft polish (P9) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/42 (200x) Pl. 199: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/53 (100x) Pl. 200: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/53 (200x) Pl. 201: leather binding polish (P10) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 22/2 (200x) Pl. 202: wood haft polish (P5) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/2 (200x) Pl. 203: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/2 (200x) CHAPTER 6 Pl. 204: binding (tendons) polish (P9) on the dorsal proximal surface of exp. 22/5 (200x)

xix

LIST OF TABLES (CD-ROM)

Note 1: Extractions or summaries of many tables are included in the text, where judged relevant. Note 2: Aside from the tables, the CD-rom also includes the abbreviations used and pictures (i.e., hafted tools, experimental setting, fractures, de-hafted tools). It can be accessed by double-clicking “StartPage.html” and following the links provided.

EXPERIMENTS Table 1: general table experiments 1.1 hafting (also available in Annex II) 1.2 prehension (also available in Annex II) 1.3 production 1.4 transport and storage Table 2: haft traits Table 3: macroscopic description 3.1 cortex 3.2 inclusions 3.3 retouch presence and coarseness 3.4 size 3.5 morphology 3.6 tool fracture Table 4: inventory of macroscopic traces 4.1 damage 4.2 gloss 4.3 lateral use – damage 4.4 lateral use – gloss 4.5 preliminary analysis – damage 4.6 preliminary analysis – gloss Table 5: inventory of microscopic traces 5.1 hafting 5.2 prehension

5.3 lateral use – hafting 5.4 lateral use – prehension 5.5 preliminary analysis – hafting 5.6 production Table 6: detailed table 6.1 experiment 1 6.2 experiment 2 6.3 experiment 3 etc. Table 7: use-wear traces Table 8: conclusive table Table 9: succession of analyses Table 10: blind test 1 10.1 experimental details 10.2 macroscopic description 10.3 microscopic traces 10.4 detailed analysis Table 11: blind test 2 11.1 experimental details 11.2 macroscopic description 11.3 macroscopic traces 11.4 microscopic traces 11.5 detailed analysis

GLOSSARY

Active tool part: the part of the tool which is used, part where the working edge is situated Bindings: straps of leather or vegetable matter that are used to tie round a stone tool or to fix a stone tool on / in a haft Haft = handle Hafting arrangement: refers to the hafting as a whole: the haft type and hafting method used, the tool placement and direction, and the orientation of the active part Haft material: the material out of which the haft is fabricated Hafting material: the material(s) out of which each part of the hafting arrangement is (are) fabricated (e.g., haft and bindings) Hafting wear: wear on the stone tool from friction with every possible material that can be used in a hafting arrangement Haft wear: wear on the handle only High Power approach: microscopic analysis of wear traces on stone tools with the aid of a metallurgical microscope, magnifications ranging from 50x up to 500x Juxtaposed haft: haft onto which the stone tool is positioned, additional fixation is necessary Juxtaposed hafting: hafting arrangement in which the tool is fixed next to the haft Low Power approach: microscopic analysis of wear traces on stone tools with the aid of a stereoscopic microscope, magnifications ranging from 5x up to 100x. Male haft: handle with a hole, groove, etc. Male hafting: arrangement by which the stone tool is inserted into the handle (e.g., groove, hole) Non-active tool part: hand-held or hafted tool part, part in which no working edge is situated (assuming no re-use) Prehensile mode: way in which the tool is held, i.e. in the hand or hafted Prehension: manual grasping Prehensile wear: all wear resulting from some kind of grasping, be it hafting or prehension Prehension wear: wear resulting from hand-held use Tool: complete tool = stone tool + haft, if hafted Wear: alteration of the surface of a stone tool, e.g. polish, scarring. Synonym of trace. Wrapping: coverage or protection of non-active stone tool part (e.g., with a piece of leather or bindings), considered to be a kind of hafting.

1. INTRODUCTION

As long as prehistoric research goes back, people have been interested in what stone tools were used for. Semenov (1957, English translation 1964) was the first to deal systematically with this question and to come up with a technique that made answers conceivable. Starting from the observation that stone tool use results in traces of wear visible on a tool’s edges, he explored the possibilities of interpreting them with the aid of a microscope. Since then, use-wear analysis has come a long way. Different levels of magnification were tested (Odell 1977; Kamminga 1978; Del Bene 1979; Keeley 1980; Del Bene 1980b; AndersonGerfaud 1981; Loy 1983; Knutsson 1988; Fullagar 1998) and a methodology gradually developed. The seventies and eighties were periods marked by many controversies; microwear analysts themselves were responsible for most of them. Analysts accused each other of a lack of a sound methodology (Keeley 1974a), the impossibility of reproducing results, the poor quality of blind tests (Newcomer et al. 1986; Moss 1987; Bamforth 1988; Hurcombe 1988; Newcomer et al. 1988), etc. The value of some techniques compared to others was doubted, often with no grounds whatsoever but simply to extol their own techniques. All this resulted in scepticism among prehistorians towards the possibilities of deriving functional inferences from traces of wear. Although controversies have been muted for some time now, microwear analysis is still suffering from the consequences. Problems highlighted in the past seem to remain in the memories of many who refuse to see the clear progression towards a sound methodological basis and the recent high quality results obtained (e.g., De Bie and Caspar 2000; Van Gijn 2008). A sound methodological basis is essential for present-day functional investigations in order to produce indisputable results. Microscopic functional research has mainly been centred on use-wear traces visible on working edges (active tool parts). Non-active parts were largely neglected, although these parts may also carry traces worth exploring. Not only technological traces, resulting from production, but also prehension or hafting traces can be observed. The latter have never been the object of a systematic study. In the past, the concept of hafting was merely described in rather general terms. Keeley (1982) is one of the few to have devoted more attention to the subject, and he pointed to the importance of hafting for adequately interpreting the archaeological record. Nevertheless, traces that could be related to hafting were observed frequently (Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985), but, due to a lack of reference, they were rarely interpreted further. Practically no hafting experiments have ever been undertaken on a systematic basis. On some occasions, hafted tools were produced for use-wear

experiments, but the resulting hafting traces were hardly ever investigated (Kamminga 1982). Only a few analysts attempted to characterise hafting traces (Odell and OdellVereecken 1980; Odell 1980; 1981; Moss and Newcomer 1982; Plisson 1982). The first breakthrough was the conference organised by Stordeur in 1984 (Stordeur 1987a). For the first time a group of analysts discussed the problem of hafting. The conference also stimulated specific hafting experiments and the analysis of the hafting traces produced. Nevertheless, investigations remained limited and unsystematic in nature and often lacked a sound experimental basis. The goal of this research is to design a methodology which allows for the identification and interpretation of prehension and hafting traces on archaeological assemblages. Experiments form the core of this investigation and are used to examine the characteristics of prehension and hafting traces and the variables that may influence their formation. Distinctive trace attributes are identified and their interpretative potential is evaluated. Both direct and indirect evidence of hafting is considered. Above all, this research searches for a valid and powerful method which allows for the interpretation of prehension and hafting traces.

1.1

BACKGROUND

Since Semenov (1964), microwear research has developed along two major research axes. On the one hand, researchers use low magnification equipment (up to 100x), permitting fast analyses on a large number of stone tools, but only the relative hardness of the material worked and the use motion can be determined (Tringham et al. 1974; Odell 1975; 1977; Kamminga 1978; Odell 1987; 1994; Odell 1996a)1. On the other hand, investigators use a metallurgical microscope with high magnification (up to 500x), permitting exact interpretations of the material worked and use motion (Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985)2. The scanning electron microscope allows for even higher magnifications (up to 20.000x) and the determination of phytoliths (Anderson-Gerfaud 1981; Mansur-Franchomme 1986)3. Recently, physico-chemical analyses (Christensen and Walter 1991; Christensen et al. 1992; Christensen et al. 1993; Šmit et al. 1998; Šmit et al. 1999) and residueanalyses (Loy 1983; 1987; 1993; Fullagar 1998; Hardy and Garufi 1998; Hardy 1999; Shanks et al. 2001; Hardy 2004; 1 2 3

Hereafter called the low power approach. Hereafter called the high power approach. Regularly referred to as the highest power approach.

2

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Lombard 2008) have extended interpretative possibilities beyond merely the determination of vegetal materials. Hafting4 has always been a problematic issue. Many archaeologists have referred to its importance, but – apart from Odell (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Odell 1980; 1981; 1994) – few seemed to be able to provide consistent evidence. This finally resulted in a conference solely devoted to the subject (Stordeur 1987a). Semenov was well aware of the fact that many tools were probably used in a haft. He mentioned some archaeological examples of bone and antler hafts (Semenov 1964: 173 –175) and he acknowledged the presence of friction between tool and haft. While he was mainly interested in traces of wear as a result of use and manufacture, he paid attention to hafting traces merely in order to distinguish them from traces of use. Semenov introduced a period of pioneering use-wear research during which experimentation for exploring its possibilities enjoyed most attention. Much effort was invested in grounding the method and themes, as prehension and hafting were not a priority. 1.1.1 Prehension Some analysts have investigated prehension traces more or less substantially (Semenov 1964; Odell 1980; 1981; Owen and Unrath 1989), but despite the awareness of their existence, many analysts neglected them and focussed on the (presumed) working edge. A frequent argument is that even polish from use on meat is very slow to form, so why would traces of finger prehension ever form (Levi-Sala 1996)? Consequently, prehension traces are rarely referred to in reports of functional analyses. In the worst case scenario, prehension traces are mistakenly interpreted as use polish and confused with traces of butchering, meat cutting or the working of another unspecified material (Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Gendel and Pirnay 1982; Unrath et al. 1986). Neglect and misinterpretations are largely due to the artificial character of many experiments, which do not include dirt or long use (Keeley 1974a; Vaughan 1985; Owen and Unrath 1989). Remarkable as it is, the traditional separation between the low and high power approach is visible in the level of interest in prehensile wear. Although low power analysts have been accused of inaccuracy on many occasions (Keeley 1974b), they pay attention to prehensile traces. This may be due to the fact that the technique allows for larger sample sizes and a continuous view on the relationship between a trace and the stone tool. High power analysts were perhaps too strongly emphasising the importance of polish so that they sometimes forgot to see the wood for the trees. The few available references mention minute spots of fresh hide polish (Keeley 1978) and polish spots similar in morphology to the contact material due

4

Prehension refers to a hand-held use of tools (also manual grasping), without any intermediate means (e.g., wrapping). Hafting refers either to the use of a wrapping of some sort or the attachment of a handle to the stone tool. Prehensile mode / wear / traces are used as general terms and include both prehension and hafting.

to small particles getting in between tool and hand (Juel Jensen 1982; Moss and Newcomer 1982; Caspar 1988). More detailed characteristics for prehension traces were proposed by low power analysts (Tringham et al. 1974; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Odell 1980; 1981) and a few high power analysts (Owen and Unrath 1989). 1.1.2 Hafting Although hafting traces were sporadically mentioned and interpreted, an extensive systematic investigation did not take place. In spite of being considered important (Keeley 1982; Stordeur 1987a), hafting and hafting traces were largely neglected. The initial indifference towards hafting traces largely stemmed from the general expectation that well-hafted artefacts should not move in their hafts and, consequently, no traces could form (Keeley 1982). Even if traces were produced, they were considered to be so minimal and insignificant that any substantial interpretation of them was hampered. Keeley had a significant influence in this matter by stating that “such traces are simply wear on tools which makes little sense as traces of utilization but does conform to what is known or expected of wear from minor movements of a tool against its haft” (Cahen et al. 1979: 681). Several analysts thought that traces similar to hafting traces might just as well be the result of other factors during use or after deposition (Juel Jensen 1982). Nevertheless, the fact that hafting traces can form is illustrated by the fact that they were frequently unconsciously noticed, but incorrectly interpreted in blind tests (Unrath et al. 1986). As experiments with hafted artefacts were rare, hafting traces could not be observed on an experimental level. Even Kamminga, who included many hafted tools in his experiments, did not pay attention to the resulting wear. He focussed on the influence of haft use on the formation of use-wear traces as a haft increased the applied load, reduced physical trauma, increased the leverage and permitted better tool manipulation (Kamminga 1978; 1982). Brink included hafted scrapers in his experiments and investigated their hafted parts (Brink 1978b), but he did not observe any haft wear, although he admits to having observed it on archaeological examples. Apart from Odell (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Odell 1980; 1981; 1996b), only a few analysts experimented with hafting (Moss and Newcomer 1982; Symens 1982; Plisson 1982; Moss 1983b; Unger-Hamilton 1988; Pawlik 1996). Most of these experiments remained limited in scope (Symens 1982) with few data on the exact experimental conditions (Plisson 1982b; Moss 1983b). This did not prevent analysts from occasionally interpreting traces on archaeological tools as evidence of hafting, generally based on the fact that traces did not conform to the pattern expected for use. Trace descriptions often take the form of “traces away from the active edge” (AndersonGerfaud 1981: 41) or “minuscule bits of unidentifiable polish” (Moss and Newcomer 1982: 292), mainly observed on dorsal surfaces and ridges (Frison 1968; Plisson 1982). An unusual distribution was the main reason for attributing a polish to hafting, especially when there was no immediate relationship to a working edge (Cahen and Gysels 1983).

INTRODUCTION

A morphological difference with use-wear traces was not observed (Semenov 1964; Cahen and Gysels 1983). When use is not a plausible cause, hafting is considered an acceptable alternative hypothesis (Levi-Sala 1996). Traces were sometimes even linked with a specific hafting method on very limited experiments (Symens 1982; 1986; Caspar 1988; Winiarska-Kabacinska 1988), or no experimental reference at all (Semenov 1964; Cahen and Gysels 1983; Vaughan 1985; Büller 1988; Tomaskova 2000). Distribution is also the basis on which other features were attributed to hafting: e.g., linear abrasion traces (Anderson-Gerfaud 1981; Beyries and Boëda 1983), lateral crushing (Wilmsen 1968), crushing of the butt (Rosenfeld 1971), fractures (Rigaud 1977). Other arguments are the absence of polish in certain areas (Anderson-Gerfaud 1981; Moss and Newcomer 1982) and the presence of adhesives (Anderson-Gerfaud 1983) or ochre (Beyries and Inizan 1982; Lombard 2007). Macroscopic features were regularly interpreted as possible evidence for hafting, such as burin facets (Semenov 1964: 66, 96-99), tool standardisation (Moss 1986a; Caspar and Cahen 1987; Plisson 1987), tool morphology (Cauvin and Stordeur 1987; Julien et al. 1987; Unger-Hamilton 1988), scraper-head morphology (Jardon-Giner and Sacchi 1994), tool size (Unger-Hamilton et al. 1987; Unrath 1987; Vaughan 1987; Plisson 1987), notches (Van Gijn 1990), a tang (or stem) (Tixier 1967; Ferring 1975; Stordeur 1987b; Tillet 1995; Wengler 1997), backing retouch, frequency of resharpening (Unger-Hamilton 1988), a sharp demarcation of use-wear (Korobkova 1981), and fractures (Keeley 1987; Schreurs 1992). The potential hafting of some tool types received more attention, such as microliths (Odell 1978; Moss and Newcomer 1982; Anderson-Gerfaud 1983; Moss 1983b; Fischer et al. 1984; Odell and Cowan 1986; Julien et al. 1987; Bergman et al. 1988; Odell 1988; Shott 1995; Dockall 1997; Lombard and Pargeter 2008), Levallois points (Shea 1988a; Holdaway 1989; Shea 1990; Plisson and Beyries 1998; Shea et al. 1998; Boeda et al. 1999), harvesting tools (Vayson 1918-1919; Korobkova 1981; Sainty 1982; UngerHamilton 1989; Anderson 1992; Anderson et al. 1992; Korobkova 1993; Juel Jensen 1994), and scrapers (Frison 1968; Rosenfeld 1971; Rigaud 1977; Keeley 1978; Plisson 1982; Moss 1983b; Beyries 1987b; Collin and Jardon-Giner 1993). The category of “hafting” gradually became standard in systems of recording wear traces (Vaughan and Plisson 1986), though it was sometimes only on a macroscopic level (Van Gijn 1990). Also a classification system for hafts and hafting methods was proposed (Stordeur 1987a: 11-34) which allowed for a more adequate description of hafting arrangements instead of the frequently used division into fixed and loose hafts (Keeley 1982). This classification system is not yet widely used, but it is adopted here. While important deficiencies in functional research on hafting can be observed, one has to admit that these are largely historical. Most analysts considered hafting to be an important issue, as witnessed by the conference organised

3

by Stordeur (1987a), but hafting traces were thought to be too poorly developed to allow for interpretation. Difficulties in interpreting or even observing hafting traces arose from the fact that researchers did not know what to look for and how to interpret it. In addition, the methodological problems involved in interpreting use-wear traces were already significant, so hafting was not regarded as a key issue. Only further developments, both methodological and technological, would allow for such far-reaching investigations, and the issue was consistently postponed. This situation is understandable: microwear research had to contend with a lot of scepticism. This increased the focus on use-wear traces instead of stimulating greater interest towards other traces which could provide a better understanding of the tool as a whole. The latter was an attitude which low power analysts adhered to most, while the former was the preferred attitude among high power analysts. The prevailing opinion that hafting traces are less developed than use-wear traces logically resulted in a preference for the latter: one needs to come to grips with the “easy” trace first, especially since so much controversy was already triggered by use-wear traces alone. Although the historical developments can be understood when placed in the correct perspective, the general negative attitude towards the potential of hafting traces discouraged their systematic investigation and hindered specific hafting experiments. No referential basis for hafting traces was thus created.

1.2

IMPORTANCE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

Tools may be hafted for several reasons (Keeley 1982; Rots 2003). A haft increases the force that may be exerted and it enhances the efficiency or precision of the work. It allows for the production of composite tools with sizes and shapes of cutting edges unobtainable with hand-held implements. For some tools, hafting is a prerequisite for use. Hafting is an important aspect of prehistoric technology as defined in its most general sense. The identification of the hafting arrangement based on macro- and microscopic evidence provides insight into a part of the tool which is rarely preserved, due to its organic nature. Based on these traces, it can be established that the stone piece in question is no tool in itself, but part of a more complex whole. At the same time, hand-held tools can be identified, where the stone implement alone forms a complete tool. Knowledge related to the prehensile mode of an artefact contributes to a better understanding of human behaviour and to a comprehensive investigation of stone tools. Indeed, hafting can have an impact at several stages during the life cycle of a tool. Schiffer (Schiffer 1972) distinguished five processes: procurement, manufacture, use, maintenance, and discard, to which Gould added hafting (Gould 1978). A general flow model for hafted stone tools was discussed elsewhere (Rots 2003) and is only summarised here (Fig. 1.1).

4

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Stone procurement

Hafting material procurement

Stone tool manufacture

Haft manufacture

Adhesive / binding manufacture

Discard

Discard

recycling

Tool hafting

Hafting material

rec

ycl

Use

ing De-hafting

logical

Maintenance: lithic tool & haft

rpho if no mo change

Secondary use

Stone

Discard

Figure 1.1. Flow chart for hafted stone tools (see also Rots 2003)

Raw material procurement. Tool hafting implies that there is available organic material which is suitable for producing hafts and other hafting materials required for fixing the tool in or onto a haft. Hafting places more demands on the procurement stage, since more materials are needed. The materials chosen largely depend on the local environment and climate, but may also be influenced by specific material qualities sought for. Haft manufacture – in contrast to stone tools – demands an important investment in time and energy (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). The fact that this investment is made indicates the importance of a haft for tool use. For some functions (e.g., projectiles), hafting is a necessity. The production costs of a haft – measured in time and energy invested – depend on the raw material and haft type chosen. Long bones, for instance, can be transformed quite easily into hafts for tanged tools, thanks to the presence of a hole, while wood can be transformed easily into a juxtaposed haft. Hafting allows one to investigate the relationship between haft type and raw material, and the preferences for specific raw materials in spite of higher production costs. Furthermore, the manufacturing process of a stone tool may be influenced by the intention to haft it, implying an adaptation of tool morphology – its design – in order to fit a certain haft. Hafted tools may be smaller, thinner, narrower and more extensively retouched than their hand-held counterparts, making it easier to assign them to “classic” morpho-typological categories (Keeley 1982: 801). They are also more likely to show special features, such as tangs, notches, etc. It was often suggested that tool standardisation may be linked to hafting (Chase 1991), but this needs to be established based on a systematic macro- and microscopic investigation.

The ease of the hafting procedure depends on the materials chosen, for the haft and for the fixings (bindings or adhesives). Such choices depend on material availability, haft type and the function envisaged. For instance, adhesives are less resistant to shocks than bindings, but better suited for hafting knives. The chosen hafting arrangement also determines the ease of de-hafting5. The fact that hafting took place indicates the planned manufacture of tools in advance of use (Odell 1996a: 55). Given the extensive preparation that is required, a hafted tool can hardly be considered as expedient. In view of technological strategies, hafting more likely occurs in a curated (Binford 1973) tool technology as opposed to an expedient one. Similarly, hafting is probably carried out more frequently for personal gear (heavily curated) than for situational gear (largely non-curated). Situational gear exhibits at most minimal, and perhaps technically different hafting features (Binford 1979). The intention to haft a stone tool may also influence the location and timing of the stone tool production and hafting process (Rots and Van Peer 2006; Van Peer et al. 2008), potentially resulting in a (planned) gearing-up phase where sufficient raw material is available. A haft enhances tool efficiency and length of tool use; it forms an extension of the stone tool in length and weight (Kamminga 1978: 79, 1982: 21). The intensity and extent of use-wear traces are indicative for the duration of use, but use-wear traces are at least partially removed during resharpening, so only the duration of the last period of use can be inferred. Hafting traces are rarely removed during resharpening, so they continue to develop with increasing

5

De-hafting is defined as the removal of a tool from its haft.

INTRODUCTION

length of use. Hafting traces are thus a more appropriate guide for evaluating total length of use. Due to high production costs, hafted tools may be transported from location to location during their use-cycle more frequently than hand-held tools, independent of mobility strategies. However, hafting does not equate to transport (on a oneto-one basis), it only makes it more likely (Keeley 1982: 799, Odell 1994). In order to reveal large-scale transport patterning, hafting data have to be linked with data on raw material procurement and use. A fifth process is tool maintenance. It involves secondary modification of a tool, and retouch is its most significant indicator. A stone tool can be retouched for a variety of reasons, such as reshaping to facilitate prehension or hafting, resharpening, or recycling (Odell 1996a: 60). A distinction can often be made based on microscopic investigations. Reshaping retouch can be identified based on prehension or hafting traces. In the case of prehension, it consists mainly of edge blunting or the removal of prominent parts. In the case of hafting, it may imply conscious standardisation or it may lead to the production of a tang for easy insertion into the haft. A resharpened edge should show traces of use, or at least remnants of it. Whether recycling can be identified depends on the number of traces preserved from the previous function. Hafted tools can be expected to be resharpened regularly. If a haft element is present, the amount of resharpening can be measured with the ratio of total length : haft length, assuming that shaping retouch on the haft element takes place only once (Shott 1986). Consequently, hafting and tool maintenance are strongly related, but whether it concerns tool maintenance as an event (e.g., when a tool slips in its haft), or as a process, referring to the “maintainable tool”6, cannot be distinguished based on hafting (Odell 1996a: 62). While re-hafting7 may take place when necessary, retooling8 may take place when it is convenient to do so, for example at a quarry, in winter, etc. (Rots and Van Peer 2006). Retooling thus influences where hafted stone tools are discarded, while identification of the exact hafting arrangement allows for an evaluation of the ease of both processes and whether a hearth is required or preferable (e.g., adhesives). Tool recycling9, clearly evidenced by ethnographic data (Binford 1977; Gallagher 1977), is extremely hard to identify based on hafting traces. Recycling may be accompanied by substantial morphological changes, removing all evidence of previous hafting or prehension. Both stone tool and haft can be recycled separately. By contrast, hafting 6

7

8

9

A maintainable tool can be defined as a tool which is made “… so that if it is broken or not appropriate for the task at hand, it can quickly and easily be brought to a functional state” (Bleed 1986: 739). Re-hafting is defined as the re-attachment of a tool to/in its original haft, e.g. when bindings loosen, or in a new haft, when the original one breaks. Retooling is the replacement of the (used) stone tool by a new one, in the same haft. Recycling is the re-use of a tool for another function after (substantial) morphological adaptations.

5

may provide data for secondary use (Schiffer et al. 1981: 68). Secondary use consists of the systematic re-use of an implement for a task it was not designed for without morphological changes. It may refer to the hafted tool as well as to the de-hafted stone tool on the condition that the latter did not undergo further changes (apart from de-hafting). Secondary use does not involve the occasional, opportunistic use of a tool for something else, or multiple use. It is more likely to occur when a tool nears or reaches depletion, because at this point there is little risk in doing so (Shott 1995: 54). If distinctive edges are used, it can be identified based on use-wear traces. Hafting traces may permit its identification when a hafted tool is de-hafted and reused in the hand, on condition that the initial task is intensive enough to produce highly visible hafting traces (e.g., re-use of scrapers used in hafted wood adzing for handheld schist scraping at the Neolithic site of Vaux-et-Borset (Belgium); Rots 2002a). An opposite scenario can be identified, but seems unlikely; why would one haft used implements? Re-hafting a tool in another hafting arrangement for another task seems just as unlikely and it seems quite impossible to identify. The discard context of once-hafted tools may differ greatly from the original location where they were used, while hand-held tools are more likely to be deposited when and where they were last used (Gould 1978; Keeley 1982). Hafted tools have longer lives and are discarded when they become dysfunctional. Hand-held tools are often discarded immediately after the completion of the task. Refitting data can be used to investigate whether once-hafted tools were produced and discarded on site. For hafted tools which are fabricated out of a raw material for which no production sequences are found, it can be argued that the tools must have been produced elsewhere and transported between sites (Rots and Van Peer 2006). A spatial (intra-site and inter-site) analysis which includes distinguishing between once-hafted and hand-held tools and the identification of the true locations of use can prevent many errors when interpreting the archaeological record (Binford 1979; Keeley 1982). It is clear that the dynamics of hafting have a significant impact at each stage of the life cycle of a tool and strongly influence the static archaeological record. Knowing whether a stone tool was used hafted may thus provide better alternatives for a number of current interpretations of the archaeological record. Hafting traces may also aid in identifying certain processes, such as secondary use. Consequently, “the idea that many of the lithic artefacts from sites were originally hafted is so obvious that lengthy considerations of its significance seems pedantic and superfluous” (Keeley 1982: 798).

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The turbulent background of use-wear studies necessitates an extensive discussion of the research methodology. After all, one of the main causes of scepticism and disbelief towards microscopic functional research in its initial phases was the lack of a sound methodology, resulting in often poorly documented and ill-founded interpretations. Despite the controversies, use-wear analysis has become a valid approach in itself, complementary to other approaches. It contributes in its own right to a better understanding of past human behaviour.

2.1

RESEARCH STRATEGY

In prehistoric research, microwear studies occupy a privileged place. Their use of experiments allows for the investigation of trace formation processes which provide a link between the static facts (macro- and microscopic wear traces) observed on archaeological tools today and past dynamics (production, use and hafting) (Binford 1977). In contrast to human behaviour, the dependence on the uniformitarian principle that the same dynamic processes operative in the past are operative today is justifiable. One starts from the assumption that if conditions are equal, microwear traces are formed in the same way today as they were in the past. The major advantage lies in the fact that this assumption can be underpinned by natural laws, by mechanical principles of trace formation. This is in sharp contrast to the problems involved in formulating cultural laws (Schiffer 1978). Despite the opportunities for middle-range theory building in microwear research, few microwear analysts concerned themselves with it. In this book, middle-range theory is implicitly developed on the dynamic significance (hafting and hafting arrangements) of static facts (hafting traces). The archaeological assemblages which were analysed during this basically experimental investigation (see Rots 2002a) provide criteria of relevance (Binford 1977). Analyses of archaeological material allow for evaluating whether the reproduced experimental traces are indeed observable on archaeological tools, or whether more or different experiments are required, and whether the experimental variability is representative of the archaeological one. Some of the results on these archaeological assemblages were published elsewhere (Rots 2002c; 2005). 2.1.1 Experimental programme Two major problems exist in relation to tool-use experiments. Firstly, an experimental use-context is artificial in nature, which reduces the comparative validity of the traces produced in relation to archaeological examples. This factor is excluded as much as possible by aiming at

task completion rather than trace production. Lack of know-how in manipulating stone tools can be raised as a second drawback because of its influence on gesture and the resulting microscopic trace pattern. Most of the experimenters, however, are sufficiently familiar with stone tools to reduce this factor to a minimum. Despite these disadvantages, experiments remain essential and the possibility of experimentation in wear studies is actually a major advantage while providing a tool to evaluate inferences, allowing for insight into tool dynamics, etc. Blind tests and analyses of preserved archaeological and ethnographic hafted tools provide reliable means to assess the quality and validity of experiments and to establish a link between experimental and archaeological traces (Rots and Williamson 2004; Rots et al. 2006). Currently available information on hafting traces is limited, underscoring the need for an extensive experimental reference collection for the investigation of archaeological artefacts. In experiments, an important number of the intervening factors (the so-called intrinsic factors) can be controlled (Beyries 1997), allowing insight into the variables which influence hafting trace variability. These intrinsic factors consist of the hafting arrangement, length of use, material worked, etc. Other – extrinsic – factors, such as use context and know-how, cannot be controlled (Hayden 1979; Cauvin and Stordeur 1987; Beyries 1993b; 1997). This is not so problematic in an experimental context, but it becomes essential when transferring data to archaeological situations. A second type of experiment, undertaken in ethnographic conditions, provides a solution (Rots and Williamson 2004). Some present hunter-gatherers (e.g., Aboriginals; Australia) and some pastoral or agriculture-based sedentary societies (e.g., Gurage, Konso, Gamo; Ethiopia) are still in the habit of manipulating stone tools, often hafted (Gallagher 1977; Hayden 1977; 1979a; Brandt 1996; Brandt and Weedman 1997; Weedman 2000; Weedman 2006). Observations made in such contexts provide non-artificial data, as an activity is still integrated in its original systemic context (not equalling a prehistoric context). This offers the best type of experiment conceivable, as the extrinsic factors can be controlled to some extent (Beyries 1993b). The know-how of these people with regard to the production and use of hafted tools also helps to address more technical questions. It offers the chance to observe the “chaîne opératoire” and the whole system in action (Rots and Williamson 2004). The experimental programme aims to test and identify the key variables which potentially influence the formation of hafting traces. The issue is addressed starting from two basic questions: (1) are hafting traces produced; if so, (2)

8

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

at what stage are they produced. The main body of experimentation concerns different issues: (1) the differentiation of hafting traces from: (a) all other non-functional wear present on a tool’s surface (“external factors”), (b) use-wear traces, and (c) prehension traces; (2) the patterning of prehension and hafting traces (is it recurrent?); (3) the internal variability of hafting traces; (4) the potential interpretation and level of certainty that can be attained by using a particular analytical procedure (e.g., low power, high power). A set of independent variables is taken into account. The choice of these variables is logically dependent on the issue at stake, but it is nevertheless subjective. Given the lack of specific hafting experiments, this research started from scratch and relied on experimentation and gradually increasing experience to decide upon the important variables. This implies that some variables may have been added in the course of the experiments (for these the first set of experiments may lack appropriate data). A distinction is made between dominant and secondary variables based on the degree to which they influence the hafting trace formation process. Apart from these experimental variables, different attributes10 are taken into account on an analytical level. The attributes depend on the stage and level of analysis. They are essentially qualitative in nature and are measured on a nominal scale: for instance, a polish can be smooth or rough, the attribute states being mutually exclusive. Some of the nominal attributes are coded in a binomial manner, as present or absent. Ordinal attributes are used for detailed descriptions of microscopic traces. The attributes are relatively ordered: a striation can be narrow, medium or large; the relative period of use can be short, moderate, long or very long. The limits of each category are set and the data are ordered in an objective manner. When no exact limits can be proposed, pictures are provided as a kind of scale (e.g., trace development: light to extensive). Macroscopic measurements of the tools are taken on a ratio scale. The qualitative, nominal data are most difficult to handle and process. In fact, they constituted a major problem in the beginning of microwear research, as qualitative assessments are more subjective in nature since they cannot be measured. Several attempts to objectify microwear observations have been made (e.g., measure brightness, texture, (Dumont 1982a; 1982b; Grace et al. 1985), but none of these has been very successful. The problem is inherent in this type of research. One can, however, systematise one’s observations to increase their objectivity. Therefore, attributes are used as the principal unit of analysis instead of terms referring to larger entities (“types”) which already combine individual elements (Odell 1977: 115). This allows for future investigations of attribute patterning and associations. Unfortunately, doing this is also more time-consuming, but is compensated for by the firmer foundations of

functional inferences and hypothesis testing (Odell 1977). The chosen attributes should allow for groupings that are significant on the level of prehension / hafting and hafting arrangements. The null-hypothesis that hafting traces are not patterned needs to be refuted. If no patterning is found, either hafting traces are not patterned or inappropriate attributes were chosen. Finally, the approach is polythetic11, on the level of both the identification of prehension / hafting and the hafting arrangement. No single attribute is the most important all the time. A series of attributes is defined which is considered characteristic for hafting in comparison to prehension, or for a specific hafting arrangement. Identification of an individual tool as being used hafted does not require that all listed attributes be present. It is the combination of a certain number of attributes that allows for identification. Similarly, not all of the attributes identified as characteristic for a certain hafting arrangement should necessarily be present, although the percentage of observed attributes with regard to the total number will be higher than in the case of an identification of hafting only. 2.1.2 Blind Test To evaluate an analyst’s capacity to interpret prehension and hafting traces and to provide a link between the experimental and archaeological analyses, blind tests are required. A blind test is an objective means to evaluate the accuracy of information retrieved by a specific method. Several blind tests were undertaken in the early days of functional research, a few applying low magnification (Odell and OdellVereecken 1980; Shea 1987; 1988b) and several applying high magnification (Keeley and Newcomer 1977; Gendel and Pirnay 1982; Knutsson and Hope 1984; Newcomer et al. 1986; Unrath et al. 1986; Bamforth et al. 1990). Although blind tests should reinforce the credibility of microscopic functional research, they have often – on the contrary – enhanced the idea of unreliability of the method for other prehistorians. In particular the test by Newcomer et al. (1986) had a profound influence on the matter. Considering the numerous comments on this test (Moss 1987; Bamforth 1988; Hurcombe 1988; Newcomer et al. 1988), it is clear that poor test results were mainly due to a methodological problem within the test itself (e.g., short tool use while all analysts agree that such “generic weak polish” (Vaughan 1985) is difficult to interpret). The test confirmed the distrust of microwear analysis in general. Though repercussions persisted, the controversies caused by the Newcomer test also stimulated a more rigid methodology. The blind test centred on prehensile traces which was performed during this research was the first of its kind (Rots et al. 2006). It is crucial as it proves or disproves the hypothesis concerning the interpretability of hafting traces. It is

11 10

“Any logically irreducible character or property of a system having two or more states (present/absent), acting as an independent variable and assumed by the observer to be of significance with reference to the frame of his study” (Clarke 1968: 42).

“An aggregate of entities or systems are said to be polythetic if each individual possesses a large but unspecified number of the attributes of the aggregate, if each attribute is possessed by large numbers of these individuals, and no single attribute is both sufficient and necessary to the aggregate membership” (Clarke 1968: 42).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

further a means to evaluate whether the selected variables yield the expected results and allow for the interpretation of hafting traces. Obviously, a blind test is also a test of an analyst’s ability to identify hafted tools and infer their respective hafting arrangements. Test results are a factor of experience, but a minimal score is prerequisite at all times to prove the validity of the method and to strengthen the argument; for a strong case to be made results need to be good. This creates an impasse: experimental results need to be supported as quickly as possible, but test results may suffer from inexperience. On top of that, blind tests are extremely instructive and provocative. They pinpoint interpretative problems not previously taken into account. This asks for regular tests which contribute to methodological and analytical improvements. As a way out of the impasse, three separate blind tests were undertaken, two of which are included: one performed at an early stage and one performed towards the end. The third and final one is included in Rots et al. (2006). The first small blind test is explorative in nature and is focussed on the general interpretability of hafting wear. The second blind test is more extensive and can be considered as a test of the designed method. In practice, the analysis during the second test is undertaken at separate levels – macroscopic, low power and high power – in order to allow for an evaluation of the results obtained for each analytical level. All blind test tools of the second test are first analysed on a macroscopic level and the analysis moves on to a higher level only after an interpretation is proposed. This means that three separate – but potentially identical – interpretations are proposed for each tool. This finally results in an assessment of the potential of each method for identifying and interpreting haft wear. The blind tests were undertaken in collaboration with CETREP (“Centre d’Étude des Techniques et de Recherche Expérimentale en Préhistoire”) of the “Chercheurs de la Wallonie”, in conjunction with the “Musée de la Préhistoire en Wallonie” (Liège, Belgium). They produced, hafted and used a number of tools without providing any information to the analyst. Tools were handed over de-hafted and cleaned. For the first test, a few strict guidelines were provided: if the tools were used, it could be for one task only and no transportation of tools (e.g., in a bag) was allowed. Potential wear could thus have been incurred during production, hafting and/or use only. For the second test, there were no limitations. 2.1.3 Archaeological analyses Experimental data do not have much value in themselves, and all experiments should finally lead to a better understanding of archaeological issues. The interaction between the experiment and the archaeological record is continuous, and experimental work needs to be integrated with archaeological analysis rather than being independent of it (Amick et al. 1989). An investigation of hafting traces logically includes analyses of archaeological material. It is the only way to evaluate whether the patterns reproduced experimentally correspond to archaeological ones. This does not require large assemblages; a few well-chosen selections

9

suffice, on the condition that the material is well preserved and no or very limited alterations are to be expected. In a later stage of hafting research, one can obviously proceed to less well-preserved assemblages. Archaeological material above all forms a research tool within a methodological investigation, it feeds experimentation and may be an aid in structuring experiments. Most of the archaeological results had already been published (Rots 2002c; 2005).

2.2

HAFTING ARRANGEMENTS: TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION

The terminology for describing aspects of hafting and hafting arrangements is derived from Stordeur (1987: 11-34). Haft type, hafting method, tool placement, tool direction and orientation of the active part are the main features describing the way in which a tool is hafted; they define the type of hafting arrangement used. Haft types can be male, female or juxtaposed. This refers to the way in which contact is made between the stone tool and its handle. A stone tool can be inserted in a handle (male), a handle can be inserted in a stone tool (female), and a tool can be placed next to a handle (juxtaposed). A male hafting essentially consists of a female haft and a male stone tool. For a female hafting, the opposite is true. In order to avoid confusion, male haft is used as a synonym for a male hafting. Bindings of some sort – animal or vegetal – may be necessary for fixation purposes. The contact between stone tool and handle can be direct or indirect, depending on whether a wrapping is used. This defines the hafting method. A wrapping consists of a piece of leather (or other) folded around the stone tool. In the case of a juxtaposed hafting, a wrapping may be partial or complete. It is partial when the tool is wrapped after being placed on a handle. The contact between tool and haft is thus direct, but the contact with the bindings is indirect. A wrapping is complete when it is arranged round the stone tool before it is placed on the haft. The contact with both haft and fixation are indirect. The tool can be placed at the end of a straight (or slightly curved) handle (terminal), at the side of a handle (lateral), or at the end of a bent (or elbow) handle (latero-distal). The tool direction can be parallel to the axis of the haft (axial) or perpendicular / oblique to it (transversal). And finally, the active part can be oriented parallel, perpendicular or obliquely to the axis of the handle. For the purpose of clarity, it is important to emphasise that the term “haft” is used as a synonym for “handle”. “Tool” refers to a complete tool, which can be a hand-held stone implement without any additions, a stone tool with some kind of wrapping, or a stone tool attached to a handle. “Stone tool” logically refers to the stone artefact only. In the case of prehension, “stone tool” and “tool” are synonymous. “Hafting material” refers to all possible materials that can be used in a hafting arrangement, and includes both “haft material” and “fi xation material”. For an overview of possible hafting arrangements, and archaeological and ethnographic preserved examples, I refer

10

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

to Stordeur (1987a; 1987b) and Rots (2002a). Archaeological examples provide evidence for the existence of a specific haft type in a certain period and region, but they do not give insight into all existing haft types. Some regions are fortunate to have good preservation conditions, such as lakes, while finds are not equally frequent for each period: the Late and Final Neolithic periods are clearly over-represented. Archaeological data are thus necessarily biased on the level of hafting arrangements, their frequency and variation. Although many preserved hafted tools potentially show traces of use, these are rarely investigated. While an interpretation of the use-wear evidence on preserved hafted tools would remain to be based on analogy, for hafting the exact arrangement is known. It is a unique situation without any use of analogy and thus a perfect validation for an experimental reference frame. Also ethnographic data cannot simply be transposed to archaeological situations: they are not representative of the archaeological variation in hafting arrangements and may be influenced by factors (e.g., environmental, social, ideological) different from prehistoric ones. Unfortunately, the ethnographic record, though large, is quite biased and only a limited range of tools is well represented. Ethnographers have largely focussed on hunting (Lee and De Vore 1968; 1976; Lee 1984), and on wood and hide working, resulting in frequent accounts of the use of axes (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993), adzes (Hayden 1979a; Kamminga 1982) and scrapers (Gallagher 1977; Kamminga 1982; MansurFranchomme 1984; 1986; Beyries 1993b; Brandt 1996; Brandt and Weedman 1997; Beyries 1997). A description of hafted tools is often lacking (Lee and Daly 1999) as well as detailed information concerning the exact hafting procedure and/or arrangement. 2.2.1 Juxtaposed hafting The most basic example is the direct fixation of a stone tool against a haft (wood, bone or antler), fixed with bindings of some sort. A disadvantage is that the tool can move backwards during high-pressure activities, which is easily resolved by partially thinning it in order to produce a ridge against which the butt is secured (Fig. 2.1). Such a stopping ridge significantly improves the strength of the hafting arrangement. When a stone tool is wrapped before being mounted on the haft, the arrangement is indirect (Fig. 2.2). A juxtaposed haft necessitates an extra fixation to ensure cohesion between stone tool and haft. Bindings are the most obvious, but a large amount of adhesive may also work. Grooves at the distal end of the haft can keep bindings in place. Bindings immersed in or covered with adhesives produce a stronger fixation, particularly when the bindings are sensitive to moisture (e.g., dried leather, intestines) (Mallet 1992: Pl. 34). Despite the use of adhesives, the hafting arrangement remains direct in this case. A major advantage of a juxtaposed haft is its flexibility: tools can be easily replaced and there is no need for standardised tools. As long as one stays within certain size limits, a reasonable range of variation is possible. Regular

Figure 2.1. Direct contact between stone tool and haft. The stopping ridge keeps the tool in place during use

Figure 2.2. Stone tool in an indirect hafting arrangement. The leather wrapping strengthens the fixing of the tool and prevents the bindings from being cut

edges ensure an easy and secure hafting and reduce the risk of cut bindings. Retouching may straighten and blunt edges where required. Archaeological examples of this haft type are rare, perhaps due to the restricted variety of documented tool types. Most of the recovered tool types, such as axes or knives, are not very functional in juxtaposed arrangements. Most archaeological examples concern adzes, and some ethnographic examples of adzes, axes and chisels exist as well (Birket-Smith 1929; Stewart 1984). 2.2.1.1 Terminal Tool Placement The tool is placed onto the distal end of a straight or slightly curved haft, most frequently in an axial direction and with the perpendicular orientation of the active part (Mansur-Franchomme 1984), or a parallel orientation (Stordeur 1987b; Mallet 1992). A transversal tool direction

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

combined with a perpendicular orientation is rare (MansurFranchomme 1984). The use of adhesives to fix a tool on a haft is frequently seen in Australia, many without a direct contact between stone tool and handle (Gould et al. 1971): the stone tool is embedded in a ball of resin at the end of the handle. The flexible angle of the stone tool is an important advantage. Thanks to the addition of beeswax, the resin is relatively flexible and capable of absorbing shocks, which allows a moderately high load to be exerted (Gould et al. 1971; Hayden 1977; 1979a; Kamminga 1982). If the resin is not made too flexible, this type of arrangement is efficient for hunting gear: when a spear point is fixed with resin at the distal haft end, the resin will shatter upon impact and the stone tool will break off and remain within the body of the animal where it will enlarge the wound upon movement (Birket-Smith 1929). Palaeolithic examples (Magdalenian mainly) were recovered in France and in Spain (Buisson and Peltier 1993). Possible activities conducted with this hafting arrangement include low-pressure adzing, chiselling (Fig. 2.3), scraping, grooving and drilling, but not chopping (i.e., with axe) or cutting.

11

identical to that of the former type. The haft morphology entails important mechanical constraints. Firstly, the haft needs to be sufficiently long to compensate for the weight of the distal part and to obtain a good balance. Secondly, the haft’s strength largely depends on the strength of the distal part: generally this essential part is cut out of the stem, while the rest of the handle is formed by a branch (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). A third factor is the angle of the distal part: the sharper the angle, the stronger the tool. The importance of the angle is confirmed by ethnographic data, where the growth direction of a branch is sometimes influenced in order to obtain the required angle, which indicates the time-span of the procurement and selection procedure for some hafts (Dickson 1981). Neolithic examples of this haft type were recovered with and without a stopping ridge (Müller-Beck 1965). Blades are mounted transversally with a perpendicular orientation of the active part in order to obtain adzes or chisels. Also most ethnographic examples consist of adze handles (Birket-Smith 1929; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). A latero-distal tool placement allows the tool to be used for adzing and scraping. It is not appropriate for chopping since a juxtaposed latero-distal haft does not allow an axial tool direction. 2.2.1.3 Lateral Tool Placement The haft is straight and the stone tool is placed next to its extremity and fixed to it with bindings. The stone tool has a transversal direction and a parallel orientation of the active part. The best example is an axe (Carneiro 1979; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993), apart from which examples are rare. This hafting arrangement is not appropriate for knives or most other activities, such as adzing and scraping, due to the difficulty of adequately mounting the stone tool.

Figure 2.3. Experimental scraping (latero-distal juxtaposed hafting) and chiselling (terminal juxtaposed hafting on straight handle)

2.2.1.2 Latero-Distal Tool Placement The haft is bent at a sharp or straight angle (also elbow or bent haft), and the tool is placed at the distal end (Heider 1967; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). A stopping ridge or a light depression may be present to prevent the tool from slipping. Except for the haft’s curvature, the principle is

2.2.2 Male hafting Preserved male hafted tools are common. The haft has a hole (= through the haft) (Baudais 1987), a concavity (Pion 1987) or a groove (Bar-Yosef 1987) into which the tool is inserted. It is a straightforward hafting method and further fixation is not always necessary (Egloff 1987). However, stone tools hafted in a concavity may sometimes be difficult to de-haft, particularly when use presses them deeper in the haft or fractures them (i.e., most fractures occur at the haft limit; cf. infra), an additional lateral hole in the haft may overcome this problem and allow one to push the stone tool out. Also, a stone tool hafted in a hole may intrude more and more during use and eventually cause the haft to split or fracture. This problem is attested to archaeologically for Neolithic axes and it resulted in several morphological changes, such as the transition from an oval crosssection to a more rectangular one in order to disperse the pressure over a larger area (Olausson 1983; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988). Two special kinds of male arrangements exist: a split haft and a wrapping. A split haft is split either up to a certain height (Kamminga 1982; Watson 1995) or over its entire length (Kamminga 1982). A variation on the latter is the use of two separate haft pieces (Toth et al. 1992)

12

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

between which the stone tool is fixed with bindings; adhesives can be used to add further strength. In the case of a partial split, the stone tool is secured to some extent by the pressure from the haft itself, but bindings remain essential. A male split haft takes an intermediate position between a juxtaposed and a male hafting. A special version is one piece of (flexible) wood which is bent round the stone tool and attached underneath by tying both haft extremities together (Dickson 1981; Mansur-Franchomme 1984). A wrapping covers the non-active part of the stone tool with leather or vegetal bindings (Tindale 1983; KoπЬцοв 1989); or with a ball of resin or bitumen (MüllerBeck 1965; Stordeur 1987b). In some cases, bindings are immersed in adhesives to enhance fixation (Tindale 1983; Bocquet 1984; Mallet 1992). The tool can also be wrapped in a piece of leather, which is then fixed with bindings (Stordeur 1987b). The hafting is direct when no or hardly any fixation is used. The hafting is indirect when the hafted tool part is first wrapped in hide (Hayden 1979a; Beyries 1997; 1999), or when resin is inserted between stone tool and haft (Gallagher 1977; Clark and Kurashina 1981; MansurFranchomme 1984; 1986; Brandt 1996). In the case of a juxtaposed haft, resin use does not necessarily result in an indirect hafting as long as it is applied on the non-contact zone of stone tool and haft. Stordeur (1987: 13) prefers to limit indirect hafting to cases in which an intermediate part is used (e.g., antler piece in wooden haft), although she acknowledges that resin can result in a similar indirect contact. From a microscopic viewpoint, the presence of an intermediate part is not indirect hafting, since the haft material is in immediate contact with the stone tool. Practically all composite tools (i.e. sickles, microliths) are hafted in a grooved male arrangement with the aid of adhesives (Kukan 1978; Vaughan 1987). A male or male split hafting is the most frequent arrangement occurring within industrial societies today (e.g.; knives, forks, screwdriver).

ers (Nissen and Dittemore 1974), and knives (Birket-Smith 1929). This type of arrangement can be used for low-pressure adzing, chiselling, scraping, grooving, etc.

2.2.2.1 Terminal Tool Placement Most terminally hafted tools with (the only possible) axial tool direction are points, awls and some knives if the active part is oriented parallel, and endscrapers, chisels, transverse arrowheads and tranchets if the active part is oriented perpendicularly (Stordeur 1987b). The oldest possible examples may be found in the Aterian of North-Africa (Tixier 1958-59) based on particular tool modifications (i.e., tang). More explicit evidence is known from the Upper Palaeolithic period onwards (Cauvin 1968; De Heinzelin 1973; Haesaerts and de Heinzelin 1979; Rots 2002c). Some recovered hafts date to the Palaeolithic, in particular the Magdalenian (Jelinek 1982), but most date to the Late and Final Neolithic periods (Mellaart 1964; Cauvin 1968; Allain and Rigaud 1993; Camps-Fabrer and Ramseyer 1993; Barge-Mahieu et al. 1993a; Barge-Mahieu et al. 1993b). Some of these may have been intermediate pieces to be mounted laterally in another larger (possibly wooden) haft (cf. adzes, axes). Ethnographic examples also exist in the form of spears (Kamminga 1982), scrap-

2.2.4 Criteria determining choice The choice of a specific arrangement is guided mainly by the function in mind, apart from obvious restrictions imposed by the natural environment. For instance, only a few arrangements are conceivable for producing a knife (or a sickle): a juxtaposed haft hinders a cutting motion and lateral hafting appears necessary. Also, choices for fixation are restricted: notches are necessary for attaching bindings if the cutting motion is not to be disturbed and a wrapping may not provide a secure fixation due to the direction of use (e.g., in contrast to a pushed scraping motion); the most obvious solution is therefore some kind of glue. Despite these restrictions, a large variety remains with respect to the angle with which the tool is positioned, both in simple and in composite arrangements. Also the haft morphology can vary. For other tool types, such as adzes or axes, the resistance of haft and fixation to highpressure motions is of key importance. Both male and juxtaposed hafts are possible, but a terminal tool position is out of the question. An axe demands the parallel orienta-

2.2.2.2 Latero-Distal Tool Placement Stone tools are hafted terminally in a bent haft or they are inserted into an intermediate part, which is mounted in a straight male haft. Adzes with a perpendicular orientation and axes with a parallel orientation are the most frequent examples of such a hafting method (Müller-Beck 1965; Cauvin 1968; Camps-Fabrer and Ramseyer 1993). Plausible uses for this arrangement are chopping (with axe), adzing and scraping. 2.2.2.3 Lateral Tool Placement The stone tool is hafted in a hole or groove at the side of the haft. A large variation occurs due to the numerous possible angles between stone tool and haft. The most important tool types are axes (Müller-Beck 1965; Heider 1967; Mellaart 1970; Baudais 1987; Egloff 1987; CampsFabrer and Ramseyer 1993; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993), knives (Müller-Beck 1965; Ramseyer 1987; Camps-Fabrer and Ramseyer 1993), sickles (Vayson 1918-1919; Stordeur 1987b; Beldiman et al. 1993), barbs (Leroi-Gourhan 1983; KoπЬцοв 1989), and composite tools (Allain and Descouts 1957; Stordeur 1987b). Most finds date to the Neolithic period, but a rare Upper Palaeolithic example exists (Jelinek 1982). A special type is a knife hafted in a ball of resin (Gould et al. 1971; Gould 1980; Tindale 1983). A tool hafted laterally in a straight male split haft is also included in this category (Carneiro 1979). This kind of arrangement can be used for chopping, adzing, cutting, scraping, etc. 2.2.3 Female hafting In a female arrangement, the haft is inserted into a hole in the stone tool. Polished hard stone axes are often hafted in this way. This hafting arrangement is impossible for flint tools and is therefore not included here.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Juxtaposed (+) easy to haft (+) easy to de-haft (+) does not demand intense shaping (i.e., standardised tools) (+) haft does not split / break easily (+) no need for intermediate part (-) further fixation is necessary (bindings / resin) (-) bindings may loosen (influence from humidity) (+) addition of resin enhances fixation (secures bindings and stops humidity impact) (+) use of resin does not hinder easy de-hafting (-) not appropriate for all actions (+) easiest in wood, possible in bone and antler (-) least preserved, but also less appropriate for tool types which are most frequently preserved

13

Male (+) easy to haft (-) difficult to de-haft (a complete hole / secondary hole / split haft is necessary) (-) demands tools with at least some shaping (or standardisation) (-) haft can split / break easily (may be stimulated by limited friction in haft) (-) sometimes need for intermediate part (+) further fixation materials are not always necessary (excluding male split hafts) (+) good fixation (+) addition of resin (or a wrapping) enhances fixation (resin rules out friction) (-) use of resin may complicate stone tool extraction (+) appropriate for all actions (+) easiest in bone/antler, or wood for split haft (+) most preserved, but also most appropriate for tool types which are most frequently preserved

Figure 2.4. Overview of the advantages / disadvantages of both a juxtaposed and a male hafting

APPROPRIATE USES Terminal Latero-distal Lateral

Juxtaposed Low-pressure adzing, chiselling, scraping, grooving, drilling, shooting Adzing, scraping, grooving Chopping, shooting (barb)

Male Low-power adzing, chiselling, scraping, grooving, drilling, shooting Chopping, adzing, scraping, grooving Chopping, adzing, cutting, scraping, shooting (barb)

Figure 2.5. Overview of the appropriate uses of both a juxtaposed and a male hafting

tion of the active part and an adze a perpendicular one. All these restrictions depend mainly on the envisaged function and the choice of a particular arrangement is not necessarily “free”. It is guided by material and task constraints, next to design considerations. Design issues cannot yet be dealt with here, but general advantages and disadvantages of a specific haft type can be proposed (Fig. 2.4) next to impossible combinations of a certain haft type and a particular function (Fig. 2.5).

2.3

HAFTING MATERIALS

2.3.1 Hafts The raw material used for producing a haft influences its strength and durability, and its qualities and constraints for a particular tool use (e.g., resistance to shocks) need to be taken into account. 2.3.1.1 Wood Several recovered artefacts attest to the use of wood for tool manufacture. Due to its organic and perishable nature, finds are rare and restricted to favourable areas / conditions. For the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, there are the well-known spears and wooden artefacts from Clacton-on-Sea (Singer et al. 1973; Oakley et al. 1977), Schöningen (Thieme 1997), and Lehringen (Movius 1950;

Thieme and Veil 1985; Thieme 1997), but also the wooden pieces found at Königsaue, Bilzingsleben and Kärlich (Germany) (Mania and Toepfer 1973; Mania 1995). Woodworking is confirmed based on frequent wood use-wear evidence (Beyries 1987a; 1993a; Hardy and Garufi 1998; Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. 2001). Upper Palaeolithic finds are fewer (Rust 1943; Bokelmann 1979), which is confirmed by the limited occurrence of wood use-wear (Beyries 1993a). Wooden artefacts are more frequently found for the Mesolithic period, but only a few hafts are documented (Evans 1897; Müller 1917; Schwantes 1934; Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2001). Data are most abundant for the Neolithic thanks to favourable preservation conditions. The Swiss and French lacustrine settlements are especially rich (Müller-Beck 1965; Bocquet and Houot 1982; Ramseyer 1985; Pétrequin 1986; Egloff 1987; Ramseyer 1987; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988), but other examples exist (Louwe Kooijmans and Kooistra 2006). Wood Species Generally speaking, hardwood species such as ash, yew, lime and hazel are appropriate for haft production thanks to a high resistance to shocks and great flexibility. While archaeological data indicate the use of a certain species and its appropriateness, data are biased: hafts are preserved for the Neolithic period mainly, under specific optimal conditions only, and a limited range of tool types is well represented (e.g., axes, sickles). Ethnographic data, modern-day

14

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

knowledge (Schweingruber 1975), or historical data may partially fill voids. It is examined whether the choice of a specific species is function-dependent. Axe handles seem to be preferentially made out of ash. All data indicate that the wood species determines the haft morphology. Ash, beech, yew and birch are preferentially used for straight hafts, while oak, pine, fruit tree species, and occasionally spruce are used in the case of latero-distal morphologies (Egloff 1987). A similar tool type is the hafted adze, but it is not equally well represented. Hazel (Clarke 1936) and birch (Rydbeck 1929) are attested species, next to oak, fruit tree, alder, and silver fir (MüllerBeck 1965; Egloff 1987). In all cases, the branch served as a handle and part of the attached tree trunk is modified to form the head. Straight hafts are fabricated out of ash and maple. Chisel handles are produced out of poplar or willow, and hoes out of fruit tree. For most recovered sickles, the wood species is not mentioned, but yew (Müller-Beck 1965), maple or fruit trees (Egloff 1987) were used. The knife is closely related to sickles, hardwoods such as elm, hazel, poplar or willow are attested too (Müller-Beck 1965), next to yew, apple, beech and wild cherry (Egloff 1987). Again, the differences in wood species seem a function of the desired haft types or morphologies. Although not all recovered spears are tipped with stone points, attested wood species are elm, yew, poplar, willow, alder, or hazel (Müller-Beck 1965; Singer et al. 1973; Thieme and Veil 1985; Thieme 1997). Arrows are produced out of ash, elm (Müller-Beck 1965), hazel (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988), or apple (Egloff 1987), but reed is also suitable (Humphrey et al. 1998). For awls and burins, hafted examples out of yew, elm, and ash were recovered (Müller-Beck 1965). To conclude, the same variety of wood species is generally used, but for some tool functions specific species are preferred (Müller-Beck 1965; Schweingruber 1965). The most obvious example is ash, a species preferentially used for high-pressure activities like chopping, adzing and shooting. This frequent use of ash is a consequence of its technological traits: it is a moderately hard to hard wood which is moderately heavy to heavy, it is easy to work and split, and it is resistant to flexion and compression thanks to the long longitudinal grains (Lundstrom-Baudais 1986; Baudais 1987). Yew is also a popular wood species thanks to its elasticity and durability, but it is not resistant to shocks. The technological traits of a particular species prove important for two use motions in the main. The first is axing: axe handles are generally fabricated out of a wood which stands up well to flexion and compression, in particular ash, next to maple and oak; beech, birch and elm are rarely represented. The second use motion is cutting (i.e., sickles and knives): a wood resistant to flexion is required and, indeed, yew is the species most often used. Haft Manufacture Currently, only ethnographic data provide some insight into the manufacturing process of wooden hafts (Carneiro 1979; Dickson 1981; Mansur-Franchomme 1984; Albasini-Roulin

1987; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). It largely depends on the haft type, and two enjoyed much attention in ethnographic research: axes (Carneiro 1979; Dickson 1981; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993) and scrapers (Gallagher 1977; Mansur-Franchomme 1984; Brandt 1996; Brandt and Weedman 1997; Weedman 2006). The haft type itself imposes restrictions on the possible wood species, such as for the “wrap-around handle” (Dickson 1981) in which one piece of wood is bent around the stone tool and both extremities are tied together below the stone tool (Rots and Van Peer 2006). The wood thus needs to be very elastic (e.g., Acacia, willow branches). Also, the balance of the completed tool is very important: the haft length depends on the weight of the intended blade, and it should increase when the weight of the blade increases (Godelier and Garanger 1973). The risk of failure depends on the haft type: the more complex its production, the higher the risk of failure. For a wrap-around handle, failure often occurs during the second stage of its production process: the lengthways splitting of the stick. This process is difficult as a split has a tendency to run off to one side, making the piece unsuitable for future use. Minor irregularities in the wood have an important effect. The wood cut for manufacturing the haft is rarely perfect in morphology, and some adaptation is generally necessary. Slow heating allows the extremity of a handle to be slightly bent and straightened (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). For wrap-around handles, the middle part of the handle is often buried in hot ash, embers and sand. The investment in time and energy depends on the part of the tree and the haft type. Cutting a piece out of a stem is far more laborious than choosing an appropriate branch: the whole cycle from procurement to finished hafted tool takes between four and eight hours (Godelier and Garanger 1973; Sillitoe 1979; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). 2.3.1.2 Osseous material Osseous material includes bone, antler, horn and ivory, all of which can be used to fabricate hafts (Rots 2008). Only bone and antler are dealt with here, given their wide availability in prehistoric times and their inclusion in the experimental programme. Two basic types with prehistoric relevance are male and male split hafts. Both straight and bent (latero-distal) examples occur. They can include a longitudinal or transverse hole or depression, a terminal split, or a lateral groove, such as in the case of knives or sickles. Frequent examples are available for the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods (Barge-Mahieu et al. 1993a; BargeMahieu et al. 1993b). Thanks to the morphology of hard animal materials, few adaptations were generally required to transform them into functional hafts. On a mechanical level, bone and antler have distinct characteristics (Currey 1979; MacGregor and Currey 1983; MacGregor 1985) and their bending strength varies depending on their state and the axis (Rots 2008). Bone While bone tools are regularly recovered (Clarke 1936; Camps-Fabrer 1982; 1985; Allain and Rigaud 1993;

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Camps-Fabrer and Ramseyer 1993; Averbouh et al. 1995), bone hafts remain rare. Most of them were found in the Near East and date to the Neolithic period (sickles mainly) (Cauvin 1983). There are some older European examples, such as a Magdalenian example for microliths (Allain and Descouts 1957), Mesolithic examples of terminal hafting (Saraun 1903; Müller 1917; Friis-Johansen 19181919; Broholm 1926-1931; Andree 1932) and microliths (Menghin 1927; Clarke 1936). If bone working existed at Blombos Cave (South Africa) as early as the Middle Stone Age (Henshilwood et al. 2001; d’Errico et al. 2001b), the first bone hafts may be much older than is known archaeologically. Evidence of intentional bone use was even found much earlier (Backwell and d’Errico 2001; d’Errico et al. 2001a; d’Errico and Backwell 2003). For the European Old Palaeolithic period, several bone artefacts have been recovered, such as at Bilzingsleben (Germany) (Mania and Cubuk 1977) and Castel di Guido (Italy) (Villa 1991). Bone is one of the easiest available haft materials, a fact which may have stimulated its use in hafting. It can be obtained in all sizes and weights, allowing the hafting of a large variety of tools, but its parts are always straight. It is strong under tension whilst remaining flexible thanks to the presence of collagen (O’Connor 1987). Based on the negative effects that heating or cooking may have on the mechanical properties of bone, bones were probably used fresh, aside from occasional partial treatment (Beyries 1997; 1999). The internal structure of bone varies depending upon the species, the part of the skeleton, and the age of the individual (O’Connor 1987). Long bones may have been used preferentially because of the presence of the medullary cavity which greatly facilitates male hafting (Schmid 1968; Holdsworth 1976; Mania and Cubuk 1977; Beyries 1993b; Mania 1995). In particular the thick, hard and compact parts of long bones were used (e.g., tibia, femur, and humerus) and, generally, the joints were cut off. Adult animals were preferred, given the higher density of their bones. Also the ribs of big mammals can function as hafts after being split laterally (Allain and Rigaud 1993). Male hafting arrangements necessarily dominate. Long bones are hollow and do not require much adaptation to be suitable as hafts (i.e. terminal hafting), but the stone tool may need to be adapted morphologically. For juxtaposed arrangements, the bone needs to be adapted in order to function as haft. Bones can also be cut laterally in the longitudinal axis to create a groove in which the stone tool can be inserted. The relative ease of haft production (e.g., break/ saw off one extremity, hollow out one extremity) compensates for the limited variety of possible hafting arrangements. Fresh bone is sufficiently soft to be cut, but it is difficult to work as soon as it dries. The adaptation performed determines the most suitable stone tool morphology: hafting in a cut off bone extremity demands a stone tool with a more or less oval cross-section; hafting in a hollowed out joint requires a stone tool with a more trapezoidal crosssection. (see Rots 2005 for an archaeological example)

15

Antler Given the number of preserved antler hafts, antler was frequently used for haft production: for complete hafts and for intermediate parts in combination with wood (Guilaine 1976; Ricq-de-Bouard 1996). Its high flexibility and resistance to shocks makes antler a favourable haft material, as exemplified archaeologically by its use as a percussion instrument (Voruz 1984; Mania 1995). Shed antlers must have been freely available and were probably predominantly used (Arbogast and Pétrequin 1993), next to cut-off antlers (Voruz 1997). Antler hafts have been recovered more frequently than bone hafts, but this may be a result of differential preservation qualities. While most finds date from the Neolithic period, Upper Palaeolithic (Pion 1987; Allain and Rigaud 1993) and Mesolithic examples (Friis-Johansen 1918-1919; Clarke 1936; Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2001) have been recovered. For the Neolithic period, the preserved examples consist of sickle hafts (Mikov 1959; Cauvin 1983; BarYosef 1987), intermediate pieces, generally for axes (Ricqde-Bouard 1996), complete male axe hafts (Giot 1958a; 1958b; Mellaart 1970), and some rare examples of other tool types (Cauvin et al. 1987; Egloff 1987). It is clear that antler is less readily available in comparison to bone: only a restricted number of animals possess antlers, such as deer and elk, and the supply of shed antlers is seasonal. Depending on the intended use, almost any part of an antler is suitable as haft (Allain and Rigaud 1993). For hafts from a single piece, the tines may have been used for preference. In combined hafts, the attachment zones of tines may have been preferred thanks to their greater strength. For a latero-distal haft, staving with a part of the tines is required. Antler was often selected over bone thanks to its greater elasticity (about 30%) and toughness. It is preferable for tools which are subjected to a lot of stress, such as axe handles (or intermediate parts). Antler is easily transformed into an appropriate haft, but there are restrictions in size and morphology. Male hafts must have been frequent, given the ease in producing them by removing the spongeosa within the antler compacta (Billamboz 1977; Beugnier 1997). The stone tool to be hafted necessarily needs to be adapted to the hole produced. Antler is difficult to saw because it is solid in cross-section. It therefore needs to be rotated periodically during sawing, and the final separation is usually done by breakage (MacGregor 1985; Greep 1987). Soaking in water or in an acid solution (MacGregor 1985) can facilitate the processing of antler (Żurowski 1974). Both soaking and heating may allow reshaping (e.g., straightening). 2.3.1.3 Soft animal and vegetal material The use of soft animal material (e.g., leather, sinew, guts) or plant fibres as haft is referred to as “wrapping”. It is considered to be a special type of hafting, given the protection it provides from sharp edges. Both ethnographic (Lynch 1980; Tindale 1983; Beyries 1997) and archaeological examples

16

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

exist (Stordeur 1987b). Bindings or wrappings can be immersed in resin to fix them more strongly (Tindale 1983; Bocquet 1984). 2.3.1.4 Adhesives When the non-active part of a stone tool is covered with a ball of resin, similar to some preserved bone awls (MüllerBeck 1965; Stordeur 1987b), this is considered to be a special type of hafting. Just like bindings, resin protects the hand from sharp edges. 2.3.2 Fixation A stone tool can be fixed in or on its haft by two major fixation aids: bindings, and/or some kind of glue. 2.3.2.1 Bindings Bindings are mostly produced out of bark, ochred leather, leather immersed in adhesives, or simple leather (Stordeur 1987b). Hide and leather On a terminological level, hide, skin and leather refer to different things: hide refers to the pelt of large animals (e.g., cattle, horses), skin refers to the pelt of small animals (e.g., sheep, goat, rabbit), and leather refers to an animal pelt which has been preserved or dressed for use. For the latter, several processes are used: tanning, curing, smoking, etc. Tanned leathers can be further divided based on the tanning agent used (e.g., vegetable tanning with bark, flower, gallnut, etc.). Curing is a conservation treatment with oil or fat which allows hides to be used in clothing, etc.; no chemical transformation takes place. Smoking is used to fix tanning agents. Here, only two terms are used: hide (including skin) and leather. More details on hide working processes can be found elsewhere (Beyries and AudouinRouzeau 2002). Hide or leather bindings can be used in various states, independent of their processing, only the dry and moistened states are considered. The main difference between them is the strength of the fixation and the amount of potential friction in the haft, both of which are related. For dry bindings, the strength of the fixation depends on how tightly the bindings are attached. In practice, it is impossible to eliminate all friction. When bindings are moistened they expand, and they contract again upon drying. Consequently, if bindings are applied when moist, the shrinkage secures the tool against its haft and little friction is possible thereafter. Thanks to their adhesive character, moist bindings are easier to attach and they stick to each other when dried, reducing the risk of loosening during use. Re-moistening the bindings facilitates de-hafting. Hide and leather were readily available throughout prehistory. The manufacturing process for bindings is straightforward and does not demand a lot of skill or a highly specialised hide treatment. Ethnographically, the use of hide/ leather bindings is widely documented, but the manufacturing process is only rarely described (Birket-Smith 1929). There are few examples of preserved hide/leather bindings (Cauvin 1968; Groenman-van Waateringe 1992). Hide/

leather degrades far more rapidly than hard animal matter and preservation chances are slim. Intestines – Sinew The characteristics mentioned for moist bindings also apply to intestines / guts and tendon / sinew as well. Both should be applied when wet and they contract upon drying. The strength of the fixation and the amount of potential friction are equal to those of moist hide. Intestines and sinew are widely available throughout prehistory and no special treatment is required, apart from cleaning the intestines in order to avoid decay. In comparison to hide, intestines and sinew are less versatile. Sinew can be used only as binding or as thread for sewing and snares (Van Gijn 1990). Hide by contrast is highly functional and can be used for clothing, tents, etc. It is not unlikely that hide is curated and that other materials are chosen for bindings, if possible, in particular given their equal efficiency and performance in securing a stone tool on or in a haft. The fabrication of sinew thread is described for the Caribou Inuit (Birket-Smith 1929). There are few preserved examples of intestines or tendons (Müller 1917). Vegetal Bindings Early evidence for the production and use of fibres and strings is scant, but indirect evidence exists in the form of figurines (e.g., woven skirts represented on the figurine) and imprints in clay (Soffer et al. 2000) for the Upper Palaeolithic period and fishing-net remains for the Mesolithic period (Palsi 1920). Direct evidence in the form of fragments of rope sticking to the cave wall is available from Lascaux cave (Glory 1958; Leroi-Gourhan and Allain 1979). For the Mesolithic period, the use of bast fibre in hafting arrangements is documented for arrows (Evans 1897). For the Neolithic, evidence is more abundant, such as birch tar combined with vegetal fibres (roots or twigs), a wooden haft fixed with pine twigs and blocked with fine thread (Bocquet 1984; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988; Mallet 1992), or flax cords / fibres and oak bark thread (Pétrequin 1986). Several tree and plant species possess materials – e.g., bark, fibres – which allow for the production of strings and rope. Lime tree (tilia) is often used for fibre production. Yew has also been documented (Müller-Beck 1965), as well as flax (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988). Agave and yucca fibre have been identified by residue analysis (Sobolik 1996). The production process of cord has been regularly described ethnographically (Dickson 1981; Stewart 1984). Generally, the fibres are twisted in order to increase strength. Moistening the cord increases its flexibility, its ease of manipulation, and its adhesion. 2.3.2.2 Adhesives Adhesives have been used extensively in the past up to the present day (Barquins 1993). Adhesives are used either as bonding agents between a stone tool and a handle, or as a haft (i.e., ball of resin). In general, adhesives (used as fixation agents) do not resist high pressure well: they crack or shatter. However, if special care is given to increasing their

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

flexibility (e.g., by adding beeswax), the resulting tool may potentially be used in high-pressure motions, such as adzing. Several types of adhesives are used. The best known is resin or tar, but hide and blood (Birket-Smith 1929) can also be transformed into an adhesive. Adhesives used in Europe are mostly of vegetal origin: resin, tar, or fruit juice. In the Near East, bitumen (natural petroleum tar) is used frequently and it is widely available in solid and liquid form (Coqueigniot 1983; Bar-Yosef 1985; Connan and Deschesne 1991; 1992; Barquins 1993; Schwartz and Hollander 2000). All adhesives can be mixed with sand or earth (loaded). Collagen was occasionally used (Connan et al. 1995), next to lime plaster (Bar-Yosef 1987; Endlicher and Tillmann 1997). Collagen is the structural fibrous protein of tissues in humans, animals, and fish. It gains adhesive properties when degraded into gelatine by treatment with hot water. The earliest evidence of resin use was discovered at the late Middle Pleistocene site at Campitello (Italy) (Mazza et al. 2006). For the Mousterian, evidence was discovered at Königsaue and Kärlich (Germany) (Mania and Toepfer 1973; Hedges et al. 1998) and at Bocksteinschmiede (Germany) (Bosinski 1985). The oldest direct evidence for the use of bitumen dates back to the Middle Palaeolithic, possibly to 70,000 years ago, based on evidence recovered at the site of Umm el Tlell and Hummal (Syria) (Boeda et al. 1996; Boëda et al. 1998; Boëda 2008). Apparently, bitumen was most often used in a pure state, although sporadic additions of proteinaceous materials have been documented (Connan et al. 1996). Evidence for the use of adhesives is more frequent for the Upper Palaeolithic (Leroi-Gourhan and Allain 1979; Leroi-Gourhan 1983), Late Palaeolithic (Lauwers 1985; Caspar and De Bie 1996; De Bie and Caspar 2000) and Mesolithic periods (Clark 1950; 1954), especially for projectiles. For the Neolithic period, evidence is abundant and mainly concerns sickle blades and knives, but also awls (Mallet 1992), projectiles (Wyss 1973) and sidescrapers (Baudais 1983). Also today, the use of resin in hafting arrangements is widely known (Kamminga 1982). Resin and tar are the most widespread adhesives used in Europe. Vegetal sugars extracted from fruit trees may have been used, but their solubility in water probably caused them to be quickly abandoned (Gaudron 1944). Bitumen was not available in most parts of Europe and is not dealt with in more detail here. Two types of adhesives are produced based on resin: one can use the resin itself, which is a plant exudates, and load it, or one can obtain tar by the destructive distillation of resinous wood or bark. While Gaudron (1944) thought that pure resins could be used after thickening them with the aid of fire, it is now known that pure natural resins are too brittle to serve as bonding agents (Kamminga 1978; Dickson 1981; Kamminga 1982). Consequently, fillers are required (Dickson 1981). According to Plisson, it is the friction with these additives which may result in microscopic hafting traces (Plisson 1982). Composition The composition of archaeological adhesives can only be identified based on chemical analyses. At first, infrared

17

spectroscopy was mainly used (Funke 1969), but later gas chromatography and mass spectrometry have proven more successful; they allowed the characterisation of biomarkers (Regert et al. 1998). Lupeol, lupenone and betulin are the principal identified components (Binder et al. 1990; Hayek et al. 1991; Heron et al. 1991; Charters et al. 1993). These analyses are possible only when sufficient adhesive material is available. If not, one has to rely on an analysis with the scanning electron microscope in combination with an energy dispersive analysis of X-rays (Pawlik 1996). Most of the studies concerned Neolithic and protohistoric adhesives (Binder et al. 1990; Regert 1996; Regert et al. 1998). Birch bark tar is the most widely used adhesive, but tar from beech, oak and alder, often in mixtures with birch, was also used. This may have been the result of re-use. Production Detailed information regarding the procurement of resin is found as early as the Natural History of Pliny the Elder (Humphrey et al. 1998). Pure resin is a lustrous translucent brown substance, softening at 60°C and becoming a viscous fluid at around 120°C. Upon further heating it changes irreversibly to a hard black mass, which is brittle and unsuitable for hafting purposes and, consequently, fillers are required. Little evidence is available concerning the exact additives that are used. The spinifex resin prepared by Australian Aborigines contains about 80% fillers by weight in the form of vegetal fibre, ochreous dust and sand (Dickson 1981). Anything can serve as an additive: sand, ochre (Wadley et al. 2004; Wadley 2005), etc. A highquality mixture demands experience (Kamminga 1978; 1982). The main problems are measuring out the amount of resin and overheating the mixture. Resin generally does not form the bulk of the material; it is only a binding film. When resin is used to haft a stone tool, it is important that the stone tool itself is heated too. Firstly, this drives off superficial moisture which hinders a good bond. Secondly, it prevents the resin from freezing upon contact with the stone, which also results in little adhesion. The surface of the wooden haft needs to be dry. Instead of resin, loaded beeswax (70% fillers by weight) can be used, which softens at a lower temperature than resin and is more pliable (Dickson 1981). Beeswax has a rather definite melting point, about 65°C, above which it is highly fluid. Pure wax shrinks considerably upon cooling and, for this reason, as well as for added mechanical strength, it should be used with loading. When it is used as a bonding agent, the stone head should be warmed to the melting point of the wax (or higher) to remove surface water. Wax is much softer and more pliable than resin. As long as it is not left lying in direct sunshine, it performs very well. Tar can be obtained by the destructive distillation of resinous wood or bark. This process was also described in the Natural History of Pliny the Elder (Humphrey et al. 1998). Pawlik’s analyses of Neolithic samples and their comparison with experimental samples indicated that no complete

18

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

distillation process had taken place and that remains of the original vegetal raw material were preserved (Pawlik 1996). Pawlik argues that the plasticity of this type of tar is higher than of that which underwent a full distillation process and that this was a trait which was intentionally sought. Birch tar is most commonly used. It is assumed that birch bark is heated in order to produce a sticky tar. This assumption was guided by the discovery of large amounts of birch bark at various sites (Mercier and Seguin 1939; Vogt 1949; Clark 1954; Van Gijn and Boon 2006) and is supported by chemical analyses (Binder et al. 1990; Heron et al. 1991; Charters et al. 1993; Pawlik 1996; Regert 1996; Regert et al. 1998). In many cases, however, secure identifications are lacking (Albasini-Roulin 1987; Egloff 1987; Ramseyer 1987; Anderson et al. 1992). Not many references can be found on the use of hide as adhesives (Witthoft 1958). There is one clear description of its production process on-line on the website of the Primitive Skills Group.12 2.3.3 Design theory and hafting materials The manufacturing process of handles demands a high investment depending on the raw material chosen and the requirements of the intended use. It is likely that the decision to haft a tool, and how to haft it, is determined by several factors including the importance and/or frequency of a task within a society (Keeley 1982). In societies where hide working is important, people will supposedly be more eager to haft their hide-working tools if it increases their efficiency. For functions necessitating hafting, the choice is limited to the complexity of the hafting arrangement and the ease of the hafting procedure itself. 2.3.3.1 Reliability A haft’s reliability depends on the intended use and the hafting arrangement. The more pressure is exerted on the tool, the higher the risk of failure. Few problems generally occur with hafts used in low- or moderate-pressure tasks. Hafts rarely split or fracture. This contrasts with high-pressure tasks, such as chopping or adzing, during which cleavage occurs far more frequently. For such use motions, it is important to choose a hafting arrangement and material that is resistant to shocks. Therefore, bone is less suitable than wood or antler, and if resin is used it has to be made more flexible than for low-pressure activities. Several attempts were made in the past to improve hafting arrangements and reduce their chance of fracturing. The evolution in wooden Neolithic axe handles provides a perfect example (Schibler 1981; Olausson 1983; Pétrequin

12

Ball (1997) describes the process as follows: shredded bits of deer hide are placed in a crock-pot, covered with water, and cooked for 24 hours. The liquid then needs to be poured off through a cloth and placed in a shallow pan where it simmers until it has reduced in volume and attained a consistency of thin warm syrup. This syrup can be used as glue and if necessary dried into a kind of gelatine and kept for years.

1986; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1988; Schibler 1997). The intention was always to improve the reliability of – in this case – the wooden handle. Antler is actually frequently used as a way to protect wooden hafts, including for spears (Birket-Smith 1929). For juxtaposed wooden hafts, it is possible to make the head stronger than the rest of the haft by carefully selecting a piece of wood out of the trunk near the roots. The reliability of a haft also varies between haft types. In general, male hafts have a higher chance of splitting than juxtaposed hafts, especially when the pressure exerted is important. The problem is that the pressure is directed from within the hole towards the outside making the haft particularly vulnerable. Juxtaposed hafts risk being fractured only when a stopping ridge is present, a characteristic that is often essential to ensure a strong fixation. A binding may prevent the haft from splitting further. In ethnographic accounts, haft fractures occur regularly, but hafts are often used for decades and passed down from one generation to the next (Brandt and Weedman 1997; Beyries 1997; Rots and Williamson 2004; Weedman 2006). 2.3.3.2 Maintainability When a haft splits, little repair is usually possible. The temporary solution is to tie both parts together with bindings, but the haft will need to be replaced eventually. If the haft is secured with bindings as soon as a fissure is visible, haft cleavage can be delayed or sometimes even prevented. The possibility of adapting a broken or damaged haft into another functional haft largely depends on the haft type and haft material in question. When a male haft splits, it may be transformed into a juxtaposed haft (with stopping ridge). Bone is the least maintainable as a result of its size and restricted morphological variety. When it breaks or splits it is difficult to repair or transform into another functional haft. 2.3.3.3 Flexibility The haft material seems to be a determining factor in the haft’s flexibility. Wood is easily transformed into a large variety of haft types, morphologies, sizes and weights. The exact hafting arrangement determines the amount of effort required for its procurement and production. A male split wooden haft is the most straightforward to produce, while the investment in a male or juxtaposed haft with stopping ridge is probably similar. Bone is a less flexible material and the number of possible haft morphologies, sizes, and weights is limited. The production of male hafts is however very straightforward for the long bones. Antler is somewhat more flexible than bone. Although one is again restricted to certain sizes and weights, all morphologies are theoretically possible, including latero-distal, straight, and curved hafts. The use of resin may increase a haft’s flexibility as a wider variety of tool morphologies can be hafted by varying the amount of resin used. Flexibility is, however, also important on the level of stone tool morphology. A juxtaposed haft allows for more varied tool morphologies than a male haft and it necessitates fewer morphological adaptations.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.3.3.4 Versatility If versatility is interpreted as “multi-functionality” (Hayden et al. 1996), then hafting may potentially restrict the number of possible uses and thus reduce a tool’s versatility. Only a particular part of the tool is available for use and not all haft materials and arrangements are equally suitable for a certain function. A tool hafted in bone is less versatile due to the difficulty of high-pressure motions, while antler is less restrictive. Straight hafts with a terminal hafting do not permit adzing or chopping, while latero-distal hafts do not permit cutting. With regard to haft type, more functions are possible with a male haft than with a juxtaposed one. However, as long as the use motion remains the same, it is rarely a problem to use a certain hafted tool on a different material from that it was intended for (e.g., a wood adze for earth working). It is clear that the versatility of a tool is influenced by several parameters and that it can only be adequately judged in the individual case. 2.3.3.5 Transportability The hafting arrangement itself does not have an important influence on the transportability of a tool; in the main, the size (length) and weight are the decisive factors. Laterodistal hafts can be balanced on the shoulder, making them easier to transport (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). In many other cases hafting increases a tool’s transportability as a hafted tool can be easily secured behind a belt of some kind. 2.3.3.6 Longevity The term longevity refers to use life, not to material conservation. It is an aspect that is difficult to evaluate. There are two major components for each hafting arrangement, the stone tool and the haft, both of which need to be evaluated separately in spite of resharpening possibilities. The use life of a stone tool is short in comparison to the potential use life of a handle. This short use life is less of an issue when the fixation procedure is straightforward and allows for easy replacements. After all, most stone tools are produced quickly and stocks can be prepared if necessary. The production of hafts is much more labour intensive and hafts are only discarded when they are no longer functional due to intensive wear or breakage (beyond repair). Based on ethnographic data, it is known that hafts are often inherited from one generation to another (Brandt and Weedman 1997; Rots and Williamson 2004), confirming their extensive use life. Hafts are thus considered as valuable items which are looked after carefully (curated). The long use life immediately compensates for the investment required, which is probably an important factor in the decision to haft a tool.

2.4

EXPERIMENTATION

Experimentation is an essential part of functional studies. It is the only way to gain insight into the formation process of macro- and microscopic traces. A large experimental reference collection is a prerequisite for a characterisation of prehension and hafting traces and for examining regularities in their formation.

19

2.4.1 Procedure All experiments were undertaken outside in order to avoid artificially clean laboratory conditions (Keeley 1974a: 330). Most hafts were produced with modern-day equipment, unless the haft production process itself was being investigated. It was far too time-consuming to produce all experimental hafts by using stone tools. Only in rare cases may the trace formation process have been affected: a male split wooden haft was most likely to be fabricated by splitting fresh wood and drying it until usable. In these experiments, the central part of a dried wooden stick was regularly cut out, which may have influenced the pressure distribution on the hafted stone tool, resulting in less pronounced traces. All flakes or blades were freshly knapped, retouched if required, and immediately inserted in separate plastic bags to avoid any further friction. Details concerning the production process, use and hafting mode were recorded. The potentially artificial nature of the experiments was reduced to a minimum by undertaking purposeful work (Keeley 1980: 15) and by placing emphasis on task completion, not trace production. All experiments were undertaken in collaboration with CETREP (“Centre d’Etudes des Techniques et de Recherche Expérimentale en Préhistoire”), a division of the “Chercheurs de la Wallonie”. As time went on, they gained expertise and know-how in stone tool production and use, and they are undoubtedly the most likely candidates for obtaining experimental data with the greatest possible reliability outside ethnographic conditions. Video-recordings of some experiments were made in order to permit more detailed studies of certain parameters in the future. All experiments and tools were photographed (see CD-rom). The pictures serve as documentation and as working documents for further examination. Contour drawings were made of all stone tools and the exact location of the haft limit was inventoried. Several stone tools were drawn before use to allow for the identification of macroscopic hafting damage. Insight grew throughout the experimentation and the recording is necessarily a victim of that; one does not know from the start which data will prove important. Consequently, the recording becomes increasingly more focussed and detailed throughout the experiments. 2.4.2 Variables All variables that are taken into account are included in a series of general tables (Tables 1), with one separate table per type of experiment: production (Table 1.3), prehension (Table 1.2), hafting (Table 1.1), and transport and storage (Table 1.4). These tables are available on the CD-rom and only extracts are included in the text, with the exception of tables 1.1 and 1.2 which are also partly included in annex II. The variables differ in part depending on the type of experiment, and the highest number of variables is incorporated for the hafting experiments. Some data (e.g., knapping data) were recorded for most tools even though they are included in the tables for only certain experiments (e.g., knapping experiments); they are however available in writing for the other tools. Below, the titles in brackets refer to

20

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

the column headings of Tables 1. Abbreviations (textual or numerical) used in the tables are included in brackets, and explained. All abbreviations are grouped in a list of abbreviations (see annexes I and II). Information concerning the experimental tools is included in the macroscopic description tables (Tables 3).

2.4.2.3 Retouch details Retouch details are recorded in a similar manner (Table 1.3): whether retouching took place (Retouch), the hammer (R hammer), the procedure (R procedure) (e.g., use of anvil), the person who retouched the tools (Retoucher), next to possible comments (R comments).

2.4.2.1 Raw material (Flint Origin and Grain Size) The raw material influences the formation of macro- and microscopic traces. Use-wear experiments have shown that the coarser the raw material the less developed the traces (Van Gijn 1990), but no effect on the appearance of microwear features was noted (Keeley 1980). The raw material variability is limited to flint. However, the reference collection is created in such a way as to facilitate future extrapolations to other raw materials. The ability to extrapolate the results to quartz has been demonstrated (Rots and Van Peer 2006). Fine-grained, high quality flint was used most frequently. Its finer structure facilitates microscopic observations and microscopic trace production. This flint comes from different sources, Belgian ones mainly. High quality flint is difficult to obtain because of low accessibility (e.g., quarry) and quality fluctuations within an extraction (i.e., bands). Surface nodules are easy to obtain, but they are often of poor quality (e.g., moisture loss, frost fractures). Extensive testing of the chosen nodules is therefore a prerequisite. Two subdivisions are made based on flint coarseness; in particular whether or not individual grains can be seen and felt. Flint extracted from, for instance, Verlaine, Obourg, Harmignies, and Heure-le-Romain, is categorised as fine-grained, while flint extracted from Eben-emael and Grand Pressigny (France) is categorised as coarse-grained. Obviously, some internal variation persists. The coarse yellow flint from Grand Pressigny is finer than the grey flint from Eben-Emael. The microscopic appearance of flint differs between sources and to some extent between nodules: some flints are brighter than others (e.g., compare Pl. 1 with Pl. 2), some have more inclusions, etc. These differences do not influence the formation of microscopic traces and they have a minor effect only on their appearance. However, they significantly hamper all image processing attempts in microwear research. Freshly knapped flint from all sources used was examined beforehand in order to avoid potential confusion between poorly developed hafting traces and a bright unpolished surface (e.g., Grand Pressigny). A small collection was preserved for future use and reference.

2.4.2.4 Tool type (Tooltype) Different tool types are included, but this investigation is not typologically orientated; the typological variety is restricted and only general type names are mentioned (i.e., scraper, burin). For debitage, it is recorded whether it is a flake or a blade. Unless noted otherwise, a scraper refers to an endscraper on a blade, and a burin refers to a dihedral burin (central). Only two further subdivisions are made, one within the group of perforators (i.e., drillbit), and another one within the group of burins (i.e., tanged burin). Blades dominate overall. Whether or not the edges are retouched is stated in Table 3.3.

2.4.2.2 Knapping details Knapping details are included in Table 1.3 only. For the other experiments, details were recorded but were not included in the tables. The hammer is specified (Hammer) and a distinction is made between soft hammers (antler and wood) and hard hammers (stone). For the exact knapping procedure, a distinction is made between direct and indirect percussion (K procedure); no pressure flaking was used. The knapper is specified (Knapper), while a category for further comments is added (K comments).

2.4.2.5 Worked material (Wmat and WM Specif.) While the exact material worked is not of primary importance for hafting experiments, its relative hardness is. It determines the amount of pressure that is exerted on the tool, which influences the formation of hafting traces. The exact procedures for working certain materials (e.g., additives) are not relevant as long as they do not influence the formation of hafting wear. For more information on such procedures, I refer to other authors (Birket-Smith 1929; Clark and Thompson 1953; Witthoft 1958; Reed 1972; Van Gijn 1990; Gassin 1996). The exact material worked may however be important for the way in which a tool is held. This depends on several factors, including the position of the material worked, the working angle, and the position of the body in relation to the tool. A hide, for instance, can be worked in several positions (Gassin 1996): on the ground (Gallagher 1977; Brandt 1996), on the knee (Gallagher 1977; Brandt 1996), stretched on a vertical (Gallagher 1977; Brandt 1996) or (semi-)horizontal frame (Beyries 1997), on a wooden board positioned obliquely towards the user (Beyries 1997), etc. This position is determined by the state in which a hide is worked (e.g., fresh or moistened hides are often worked on vertical frames since a lot of “dirt” comes off). The chosen position sets demands on the type of tool used, in particular its hafting mode (Beyries and Rots 2008). All materials worked are subdivided into three groups, based on their relative hardness or their resistance / “penetrability”. The latter determines the amount of counterpressure exerted by a specific material worked on the tool, which in turn influences the formation of hafting traces. In most cases, the relative hardness corresponds to the relative penetrability of a material worked, but there are exceptions (e.g., earth). When a material is worked while positioned on another material (i.e., a hard surface), this is taken into account when evaluating the resistance class (e.g., hide worked on wood). Certain materials worked were not included (e.g., fish, shell), but each resistance class is represented.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Most hard materials – antler, bone and stone – are difficult to penetrate. Therefore, the counter-pressure on the hafted tool is high, which may increase the production of hafting traces. For wood, penetrability depends on the type of wood worked (hardwood or softwood) and its state (fresh or seasoned). Penetrability is poor for fresh and seasoned birch, sycamore / maple, and oak (Keeley 1980: 17). When hide is worked on a wooden board, the wood determines the amount of counter-pressure and the material is classified in the corresponding category. Softwoods are on the border between low and medium penetrability. They include fresh and seasoned yew, pine, and spruce (Keeley 1980: 17), but also vegetable matter such as rush and reed. Butchering usually implies contact with bone, though limited, but it necessitates subdivision into this category. Hide worked on the ground or the knee is also included. It is more easily penetrable than when on a wooden board, but less than on a frame. All soft materials are considered highly penetrable: these include meat, plants, and vegetables. While earth in itself is a mineral and thus hard and abrasive (on a granular level), its penetrability depends on the kind of earth being worked. All earth worked in our experiments is penetrable and consists of organic-rich loamy sediment. Hide stretched on a frame should also be classified among the easily penetrable materials. 2.4.2.6 Activities (Activity) The activity undertaken is an important variable. It determines the amount of pressure that is exerted on the tool and thus the degree of friction that occurs between stone tool and haft. It also determines the direction of the pressure being exerted with regard to the tool’s axis. Scraping and cutting are use motions with similar pressures, but the pressure direction with regard to the tool’s axis differs: it is perpendicular and parallel respectively. As a consequence, more stress is put on the hafting arrangement when scraping (or in other “non-parallel” motions), potentially resulting in more friction and better-developed hafting wear. Both the degree of friction and the direction of exerted pressure determine how a certain activity is classified. This subdivision differs from that proposed by Leroi-Gourhan, who based his division on the type of percussion only and who grouped cutting, scraping, grooving, etc. in one category (“percussion posée”) (Leroi-Gourhan 1943). The fact that a tool exerts a pressure under impact on the material worked is sufficient to classify a use motion as a high-pressure activity. It counts for all activities involving percussion: adzing, in which the tool is launched on the material worked, and chiselling, in which a hammer is launched on the tool (Fig. 2.3), and impact-rich motions such as shooting. For moderate pressure actions, the pressure direction is determinant. When a tool is not launched on a material, the pressure exerted depends on the user and the prehensile mode. A subdivision has to be based on the non-parallel direction of the pressure with regard to the tool’s axis. In scraping (Fig. 2.3) and grooving, the pressure is orientated perpendicular to the tool’s axis. In perforating (i.e., with

21

the hand) or drilling (i.e., with a mechanical drill), it is centripetal. In all cases, considerable pressure is exerted on the fixation between stone tool and haft. In low-pressure actions, the pressure exerted may be very low (e.g., smoothing) or low to moderate (e.g., cutting, sawing). The direction of the pressure is parallel to the tool’s axis, allowing little potential friction between stone tool and haft, which reduces the chances of hafting wear. Only when the tool’s fixation is loosening may more friction occur. Theoretically, cutting is a uni-directional motion, while sawing is bi-directional. Such a division is not really made here; while some experimental tools may have been used in one direction for part of their use, most were used in two directions. 2.4.2.7 Haft (Haft Nr) The haft itself induces a lot of variation. The most important features – type, material, morphology – are included in the general table (Table 1.1). All other details, size in particular, are included in a separate table (Table 2; see CD-rom); these include haft length and width, and the size of the hole or intrusion. Each of these aspects may influence the formation of hafting traces. Two out of three major haft type (HT) categories are included: juxtaposed (J) and male (M) hafts. Female (F) hafts are impossible for flint tools. Subtypes of a male haft are a male split haft (MS) and a wrapping. Different options exist: a leather piece fixed around a part of the tool with bindings (W), bindings alone (B), or a lump of resin (R). In all cases, the sharp edges of the tool are covered to protect the hand. A wrapping can also be combined with a haft, which does not influence the haft type, but the haft contact becomes indirect. The haft type may have an important influence on the formation of hafting traces as it determines the contact area. It also determines whether other hafting materials are required (e.g., bindings for juxtaposed hafts). Possible haft materials (Haft and HM Specif.) are wood (24), bone (41) or antler (42), and the wrappings are made out of soft animal matter (31, 32), vegetable material (20) or resin (80). The figures in brackets refer to the codes included in Tables 1; they are explained in annex I (see “material responsible”) and are based on the registration system proposed by Vaughan and Plisson (1986). The haft material can be expected to influence the morphology of the hafting traces along the lines of what happens in the case of usewear traces (Keeley 1980). The hardness of the haft material evidently influences the counter-pressure exerted on the tool, and thus the potential wear. Three general categories describe the haft morphology (H morph): straight, curved or latero-distal. More detail is added by specifying the intensity of the curve (slightly curved or curved), or the angle at which latero-distal hafts are bent (straight angle or sharp angle). Details concerning the haft size and its components are included in Table 2. The haft size and weight determine the pressure exerted on the material worked and thus the potential hafting wear formed. The proportion between length, width, weight, etc. determines the strength of the haft. If

22

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

a haft is too long and too thin, it breaks easily. Functional hafts thus need to be balanced and attention needs to be paid to tool dynamics (kinematics). Long handles should be combined with light heads and short handles with heavy heads, and not vice versa (Dickson 1981). Nor should a haft be too thick or too thin if it is to be easily manipulated. The haft weight is also governed by the intended function. A heavy haft may increase efficiency in high-pressure motions, but it should not be too heavy to allow for easy manipulation. Similarly, a heavy haft may not be functional for working certain, especially fragile, materials, or for functions that demand high precision. Both haft size and weight may influence the distribution of use-wear traces and the exact way in which a tool is held. All size measurements are indicated on fig. 2.6. Four large categories of hafting arrangements are included: a juxtaposed latero-distal haft (LD), a male haft with a hole (M), a male split haft (MS), and a male grooved lateral haft (L). The abbreviations in brackets refer to this figure only.

part of the haft in contact with the stone tool. Two measurements are taken, the length of intrusion (LD2, L2, MS2, M2) and the total holder length (LD3, L3). For most hafts only the length of intrusion is referred to, as both measurements are essentially the same. For latero-distal hafts, total holder length refers to the length of the whole transversal part (LD3), while length of intrusion refers to the length of the hole or lowered part on which the tool is positioned (LD2). For lateral hafts, the total holder length refers to the length of the groove (or hole; L3), while length of intrusion refers to the depth of the groove (L2). The width of this holder is also measured (LD4, L4, M3, MS3). For lateral hafts, the width of the groove is measured (L4) and the total width (L5). For male hafts, holder width refers to the inner hole (M3), while outer holder width refers to the outer circle of the hole (M4). This allows a link between the holder widths of the hafts and the width measurements of the stone tools. 2.4.2.8 Hafting arrangement The hafting method (HM) can be direct (D), or indirect (I) when a wrapping is used, on the condition that the wrapping prevents contact between stone tool and haft. Also resin usually reduces or prevents contact between stone tool and haft. Tool placement (TP), tool direction (TD) and orientation of the active part (AP) are in fact determined by the use motion. A cutting motion generally demands lateral tool placement, an axial tool direction, and parallel orientation of the active part. A scraping motion demands terminal or latero-distal tool placement in combination with axial tool direction, or lateral tool placement in combination with a transversal tool direction. In all cases, the active part has to be orientated perpendicular to the haft axis. The haft type determines the face in contact with the haft (H Contact): one in a juxtaposed haft, both in a male haft. The orientation of the stone tool depends on the activity; when a scraper is used to adze, the ventral face preferentially faces upward (unless the angle is sufficiently sharp, e.g., about 45°), while for scraping the ventral face is generally downward. Which tool part is hafted (Hafted Part) depends on the location of the working edge. When a scraper is produced on the proximal extremity, logically the distal part is hafted. Apart from cutting motions that require lateral hafting, the proximal part is generally hafted. This aspect is especially important when inventorying the traces present on each tool part; it is not a “true” variable. For hand-held tools, “H contact” refers to the tool part in contact with the hand.

Figure 2.6. Size measurements on hafts (LD= juxtaposed laterodistal haft, L= lateral hafting, M= male haft, MS= male split haft). Details explained in the text

The maximal haft length is measured (MS1, M1, L1); for latero-distal hafts this is the length of the handle (LD1), not of the transverse holder (LD2). “Holder” refers to the

Fixation Bindings (Bin, B Specif. and B Dir.) or resin (Fix and F Specif.) secure a stone tool against or in a haft. Bindings are a necessity for juxtaposed hafts and often also for male split hafts, while resin is generally required when fixing a stone tool in a male haft used for cutting (knives and sickles). Resin can be added to bindings in order to reinforce and secure them or to protect them against moisture. A

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

wrapping (Wr and W Specif.) can be used to prevent bindings from being cut (= indirect hafting). Bindings are fabricated out of leather (code 32), moistened leather (32), intestines (31), sinew (31) or linen (20). The figures are included in the general category, while a specification of the exact material used is included in “B/F Specif.”. The direction in which bindings are secured around the tool is also recorded (B Dir.), though this variable was added later. Two possible directions are distinguished: clockwise, from the dorsal right edge to the ventral right edge (1), and counter-clockwise, from the ventral right edge to the dorsal right edge (2). The inventoried direction is independent of the face in contact with the haft. The resin used consisted of spruce resin and was loaded with charcoal, sometimes also with ochre or sand. In a few cases, beeswax or grease was added, which produced a stickier and more flexible resin (e.g., exp. 15/18). Wrappings consisted of leather or moistened leather. The stone tool alone was wrapped (e.g., exp. 1/6, 1/7) or the wrapping was turned round the stone tool and haft as a whole, in which case the haft contact remained direct (e.g., exp. 10/34, 10/35). 2.4.2.9 Use duration (H:min:sec and Rel.Dur.) Apart from the exact use duration (H:min:sec), a relative estimation is made on a scale from 1 to 4 (Rel.Dur.): less than 10 minutes (very short / 1), 10 – 29min 59sec (moderate / 2), 30 – 59min 59sec (high / 3), more than one hour (extensive / 4). Short use durations are most frequently the result of fractures or loosening hafting arrangements, apart from a few intentional short uses. Shorter use durations are necessary for an evaluation of the speed with which hafting traces form and the moment at which they become identifiable or characteristic. For transported tools, the duration (in days) of transportation is recorded. Next to use duration, the number of strokes is recorded for some experimental tools, in particular those used on wood. These data are not included in the tables. 2.4.2.10 Number of resharpenings (Nr. Resharpening) The frequency of resharpening provides data on the intensity of the use-wear traces with regard to the total use duration. It also allows some insight into the influence of a haft on the morphology of frequently resharpened tools, even though few tools were used in such an extensive way. The resharpening data were recorded only when judged relevant. 2.4.2.11 Experimenter (Ex) Thanks to the efforts of the “Chercheurs de la Wallonie” several people performed experiments. In order to allow an assessment of the individual factor, a reference to the experimenter is always included. The figures refer to the following individuals: 1: V. Rots; 2: L. Pirnay; 3: J. Speckens; 4: L. Baumans; 5: D. Cocchi; 6: P. Pirson; 7: O. Baudoux; 8: C. Casseyas; 9: T. Cardon; 10: L. Bodson; 11: J.-P. Caspar; 12: C. Massin; 13: A. Geerts. In a few cases, several people used one experimental tool (e.g., exp. 1/4),

23

which is marked “99”. The number of experimenters per tool was kept to a minimum. If an experimenter undertook one or a few experiments only, he/she is not referred to individually (“90”). 2.4.2.12 Tool efficiency This category includes a subjective assessment by the user concerning the tool’s efficiency for the task. It is evaluated on a scale from 0 (not efficient) to 4 (very efficient). This variable was added later and is not available for all tools. 2.4.2.13 Friction The amount of friction that occurred in the haft during use was assessed subjectively by the experimenter on a scale of 0 (no friction) to 4 (high friction). This variable was added later and is not available for all tools. In the table, some additional remarks are included. In the first category (Result) the reasons why the experiment was interrupted (e.g., fracture, depletion) may be included, as well as a macroscopic observation made during or after the experiment (e.g., rounding, scarring). In some instances, use was interrupted because the desired length of use was attained. Such tools are marked as “usable”; they are not depleted or fractured. A second category (Comments) includes any comments with potential future relevance. 2.4.3 Experimental programme All experimental tools were grouped into several sets of experiments, 28 in total. These groups are not fixed categories, although each group has a common theme (e.g., a function, a tool type, a hafting issue). In some instances, an archaeological problem lies at the basis of an experiment. Each group includes several tools, but a particular tool use is not necessarily restricted to one particular group. For the analysis, experimental tools are selected from the different sub-sets of experiments. All experimental details are included in a set of general tables (Tables 1): hafting (Table 1.1), prehension (Table 1.2), production (Table 1.3), transport and storage experiments (Table 1.4). For comprehensible reasons, the tables relating to the hafting and prehension experiments are partly included in annex II and, together with all the other tables, also on the CD-rom. 2.4.3.1 Summary of experiments For the key variables like haft type, haft material, fixation and use, counts of tools per category are included (Fig. 2.7). The blind test tools are not included. More details are given on the CD-rom. A well-balanced and representative tool set was striven for and most worked material categories (i.e., differing penetrability) and use motions (i.e., differing pressure exerted) are included. All wood worked is grouped under the barely penetrable materials, given that most were hard or worked dry. The few exceptions are not separated out here, but can be identified based on Table 1.1 and Table 1.2. This also counts for the different hide-working modes (e.g., on a frame, on wood).

24

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

SUMMARY Experimental details Hafting Prehension juxtaposed haft 96 Haft Type male haft 126 male split haft 60 antler 75 bone 9 Haft wood 173 Material leather 23 vegetal (lime tree) 2 Wrapping animal - leather 37 animal - leather 129 Bindings animal - soft 8 vegetal 28 vegetal 5 Fixation resin 89 dorsal 27 Haft ventral 71 Contact both 184 HIGH PRESSURE adzing 26 chiselling 21 striking 1 2 MODERATE PRESSURE scraping 51 15 grooving 50 13 perforating 29 6 Activity drilling 23 LOW PRESSURE sawing 14 5 cutting 47 3 shaving 1 0 smoothing 1 2 polishing 0 5 NONE 18 0 HIGH PENETRABILITY mineral (earth, 9 3 ceramics) mineral (earth) + plants 4 0 meat 1 0 hide 18 2 MODERATE PENETRABILITY vegetal matter 2 0 soft non-woody plants 3 0 41 0 Material hard non-woody plants Worked LOW PENETRABILITY hard stone 2 2 soft stone (schist) 23 18 wood 89 10 bone 44 14 antler 24 2 carcass 1 0 (bone+meat+skin) OTHER 3 0 NONE 18 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF TOOLS 282 51 Figure 2.7. Summary of the experiments

For the hafting arrangements, more details are included in fig. 2.8. Male wooden hafts in which tools are hafted directly are rare, and most male wooden hafts included in the indirect category are grooved hafts in which the tool is mounted laterally with resin. Male split wooden hafts are more frequent, given the ease of their manufacture. The fragile nature of bone (i.e., for longitudinal fractures) precludes male split bone hafts. The “vegetal” and “leather” haft material categories refer to the use of a wrapping. HAFTING HAFT MATERIAL METHOD vegetal wood leather bone

HAFT TYPE Juxtaposed Male Male split

antler

direct

0

63

0

4

indirect

0

14

0

0

15 0

direct

2

2

17

5

23

indirect

0

45

6

0

26

direct

0

37

0

0

8

0 2

12 173

0 23

0 9

3 75

indirect TOTAL

Figure 2.8. Hafting arrangements used

2.5

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

For the analysis, a flexible attribute recording system was created with different levels of detail, in order to allow for easy comparison of different analytical methods (i.e., magnifications). Existing recording procedures for use-wear traces were adapted to the recording of hafting wear and a flexible database was created. Traces were first recorded on a more general level involving the recording of their presence/absence and their location. Subsequently, trace attributes were described in detail, and interpretations were provided. Finally, the certainty level of an interpretation was evaluated. The success rates of the different methods for analysing prehension and hafting wear were evaluated. Three magnification levels are compared: a macroscopic, a low power and a high power analysis. Trace attributes and the detail of the interpretation differ to some degree between these magnification levels. For each magnification level, the attributes, the equipment and the exact analytical procedure are discussed. 2.5.1

Recording

2.5.1.1 Terminology The standard terminology for describing different parts of a stone artefact (Inizan et al. 1999) was adapted, to allow for the accurate localisation of macro- and microscopic traces. In the use-wear inventorying scheme proposed by Vaughan and Plisson (1986), a stone tool was divided into different numbered parts, but this system is not adequate for inventorying hafting wear. Here, three main tool parts are distinguished (Fig. 2.9). Aside from the proximal (A) and distal zone (C), the medial zone (B) is defined as the area around the haft boundary: a rather narrow area, about 0.5 cm above (or distal of) the haft limit and about 1 cm below (or proximal of) it. Each of these parts can be subdivided into a (most) proximal and (most) distal zone if necessary

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

(A1 – A4). When a zone or point is referred to as “below” another one, it means that the former is situated proximal of the latter. The same counts for “above”; it refers to a zone or point distal of the other one.

Figure 2.9. Division into different tool parts for hafted tools (dorsal face= left, ventral face= right)

When the haft limit is oblique, the medial part starts at a different location on both lateral edges corresponding with the start of the haft. For laterally hafted or used tools, an additional subdivision is made between the active and non-active edges. The number of zones inventoried is thus doubled (apart from the butt and point). In such cases, the subdivision into proximal, medial and distal tool parts is arbitrary. Given these important differences, all analytical data for laterally hafted tools are included in a separate table. When a tool is used in the hand, an arbitrary division is used: the proximal zone is defined as the more basal 1/2 of the tool, while the upper part is divided in two equal parts: medial and distal. The identification of the left and right edges is based on the dorsal face and remains the same for the ventral face. A “face” refers to the dorsal or ventral side of the tool including surface, (ridges) and edges, while “surface” refers only to the flat zone between ridges, edges or between ridge and edge. The adjacent dorsal and ventral edges of the butt are defined as the dorsal butt and ventral butt.13 The distal outer edge is defined as the distal point independently of its morphology. 2.5.1.2 Procedure Independently of the magnification, one recording procedure is used for inventorying the traces. Traces are recorded according to their presence on a specific tool part. Twenty-one individual zones (IZ) are distinguished, 11 on the dorsal face, 9 on the ventral face and one on the butt

13

In the case of proximal fractures (e.g., knapping), the term dorsal/ventral butt refers to the proximal extremity, i.e., the fracture edge, while the butt refers to the fracture plane. When the original butt is removed by retouch, the dorsal butt terminates in a point and coincides with the butt. In those cases, the butt is marked as absent to avoid duplicate inventorying.

25

(e.g., Tables 4 and 5). A table is included for each stage in the recording procedure. The recording of a certain trace on an IZ takes a simple binomial – 0-1 (absence – presence) – form. It is detailed by including the trace intensity on a scale from 1 (poor presence) to 4 (extensive presence).14 This forms the most basic inventorying level (e.g., Table 5.1). All traces – independent of their cause – are equally valid. When the tool part in question is non-existent (e.g., bulb) or when a trace type cannot form on a specific tool part (e.g., scarring of the surface), it is inventoried as “8”. When the trace presence cannot be investigated (e.g., tool size), it is marked as “9”. A second level – the differentiation level – is included. It includes an interpretation of the trace’s cause (e.g., Table 5.1): a numerical reference precedes the number from the inventorying level (presence / absence). For instance, when scars are the result of knapping, they are marked as 201 (poor presence) up to 204 (abundant presence). The first two digits “20” refer to the cause (knapping) and the third digit, “1” to “4”, to the intensity (see above). These numerical references are detailed below and in annex I. If the exact cause is unknown, no figure precedes the intensity figure. Given the table structure, only one cause can be included per tool part. This implies that some traces have precedence over others: when retouch and hafting striations are observed on the ventral medial edge only the hafting ones are inventoried. Reference to the presence of others can be included in the comments and both traces may be characterised in the detailed table. The rules of precedence are as follows: 1. hafting; 2. prehension; 3. use; 4. retouching; 5. knapping; 6. undefined non-active and non-hafting; 7. undefined friction. Within the hafting category, the privilege rules are: 1. general hafting; 2. intrusion of worked material particles in the haft; 3. friction of tool parts in haft; 4. de-hafting. The logic behind these rules relies on the order in which traces are produced; only hafting or prehension take precedence at all times. For both levels (inventorying and differentiation), a few more aspects are included: – the visibility of a clear boundary between the used and hafted tool portions – whether the attributes of the used and hafted portions have distinct characteristics – whether the use duration exceeded a minimum of 10 minutes – whether a fracture occurred (which might have prevented further use) For the first two, whether the affirmation refers to both faces (“1”), or the dorsal (“2”) or ventral face (“3”) only is included. On a third level, trace attributes are described based on an extensive registration system (Table 6): morphological aspects, patterns, etc. are described and an interpretation of the material responsible and cause is provided. This characterisation stage evidently focuses on prehension and hafting 14

The intensity level was added at a later stage and may be unavailable in some cases. In such cases, a “0” is added instead.

26

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

traces; other traces are only occasionally included, except in specific experiments (e.g., knapping experiments). The codification is flexible, but it is essentially qualitative in nature. On the evaluation level, all data are gathered in one conclusive table in which the interpretability of the hafting traces is evaluated per tool (Table 8). This is an important level: an experimental tool is treated as if it were an archaeological one, and what one would have been able to interpret given such circumstances, i.e., how certain could one have been that the tool was used hafted (on a scale of 1 to 4), which traces or attributes support the interpretation, how certain is the interpretation of the haft type, etc., are all evaluated. The interpretability of tool placement, tool direction, and orientation of the active part is always evaluated as very certain, since the location of the used tool part allows its determination. Haft type and hafting method are often indirectly derived from other observations: when traces on the dorsal and ventral faces differ, this points to the use of either a juxtaposed hafting or a partial wrapping in a male-type arrangement. A separate table is provided for each of the three main analytical methods used (macro, LP, HP). Only the variables that are observable at a certain magnification level are used in the evaluation. Data acquired by means of a lower magnification are taken into account when examining the tools at a higher magnification (but not vice versa) as long as they are visible during the analysis. This table permits many comparative inferences, for instance on the minimum time needed for interpretable wear to form, on the use motion that leads to the most clearly interpretable hafting wear, etc. Of course, the evaluation of the general interpretability differs from the interpretability of an individual trace included in the detailed tables. In the latter case, a trace is considered in isolation and not in relation to other traces. In the conclusive table, an evaluation is made of how interpretable a certain aspect of the hafting arrangement is; all visible traces (per level) are thus combined. A table including the sequence in which the analyses were performed is included for evaluation purposes only: which data may not have been included in the first analyses, what the effect of increasing experience on the analysis was, etc. (Table 9).

2.5.2.2 Inclusions Inclusions are coarser zones within a flint tool which may hinder trace production. When investigating trace patterning, the exact location of inclusions must be known: their presence or absence in a specific IZ is inventoried (Table 3.2). The inclusions need to have a minimal size of 2 cm², or cover a minimum of 60% of the IZ in question. Smaller inclusions do not really influence trace patterning and are therefore omitted. 2.5.2.3 Retouch Retouching refers to the intentional removal of small flakes on the edges of flakes or blades and differs from scarring produced by other causes (e.g., use, hafting). Recording the retouch distribution (Table 3.3) is important with regard to hafting: higher pressure can be exerted; pressure is distributed over a larger area; the edge is more resistant reducing the chance of scarring; and retouch impedes the visibility of non-intentional scarring. Apart from the presence or absence of retouch, its coarseness is also recorded in four categories: – fine: small regularly placed retouch scars, with poor crushing (1) – moderate: moderately sized retouch scars, some crushing may be present (2) – coarse: large retouch scars, with an important superimposition of scars and moderate crushing (3) – heavy: large retouch scars, with frequent hinge terminations and an important amount of crushing at the initiation of scars, sometimes associated with abrasion (4) 2.5.2.4 Size Most measurements are relevant only for archaeological tools, but they are included for the experimental tools for the sake of consistency. Obvious examples of less relevant measurements are those taken in the distal zone. All measurements were taken with sliding callipers, on used tools only, and after the completion of the analysis in order to avoid unnecessary friction (Table 3.4).

2.5.2 Macroscopic Description Each experimental tool is described on a macroscopic level (Tables 3). The presence of cortex rules out the possibility of trace formation, while morphological traits may influence the trace pattern: e.g., traces form more easily on projections than in depressions. An awareness of the potential influence of morphology is essential for adequate interpretation. 2.5.2.1 Cortex Recording the regions with cortex (Ozol 1963; Luedtke 1992) is important for defining the areas where no potential wear can form (apart from perhaps some abrasion) (Table 3.1). It prevents biased results once trace patterns are examined. Cortical zones which concern a whole IZ are marked as impossible to analyse.

Figure 2.10. Tool measurements

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A few measurements are relevant for hafting, especially with a view to obtaining comparative experimental data (Fig. 2.10). The first is the maximum width of the hafted part: it is the distance in a straight line between the two most prominent points on the edge, and it is measured between two straight lines bordering the edge, parallel to the tool’s axis (A). The medial width is measured at the exact haft limit (B); the proximal width is measured at 0.1 mm from the extremity (C). When measurement values are compared with the haft width (juxtaposed, male split), one can evaluate whether some zones protruded from the haft, which may have influenced the trace pattern. For male arrangements, the amount of space present around the tool can be evaluated. For consistency’s sake, the width of the distal part is measured at 0.3 mm from the distal end (D). This implies that pointed tools do not have a zero value. A second set of measurements – for male hafting arrangements only – concerns the thickness of the hafted part with regard to the size of the hole. Three measurements are included, one for each tool part (proximal, medial and distal). Distal and medial thicknesses are measured at the same spot as the width measurements, while the proximal thickness is measured at about 0.5 mm from the extremity. The last, measured in about the centre of the bulbar zone (if present), is assumed to correspond to the maximal thickness of the hafted part. A comparison of the proximal and medial thicknesses allows for a relative evaluation of bulb prominence. These thickness measurements are important for determining the amount of contact between stone tool and haft, and the strength of the fit on the condition that no additional hafting materials are used. Thirdly, the maximum tool length (E) and the distance from the butt to the haft limit (F) are measured. This permits a comparison of the tool’s intrusion in the haft with the maximal tool length. On an archaeological level, the maximal tool length represents a discarded state, which is likely to correspond to the moment when the tool was considered dysfunctional (e.g., no further resharpening possible, edge angle too obtuse). Combined with an identification of the haft limit, it permits inferences concerning use intensity and discard. When there is hardly any difference between the butt – haft limit distance and the total tool length, one may conclude that the tool could not be resharpened any further and was thus exhausted. 2.5.2.5 Morphology Artefact morphology may influence trace formation and distribution; different morphological attributes are thus examined (Tables 3.4 and 3.5). Only the lateral angles of used tools are considered relevant for hafting issues (Table 3.4). The influence of edge angle on hafting wear seems obvious: the sharper the edge the less resistant it is to pressure and the more easily scarring is produced. Angles are measured with a goniometer in the centre of the medial zone on both the left and right edges. This area is the most relevant one given the location of the haft limit and the potential pressure concentration. Two types of angles are measured. The spine plane angle is measured from the plane of the ventral surface of

27

a flake or blade to the plane of the dorsal surface which is nearest to the edge in question (Wilmsen 1968; Tringham et al. 1974). It “reflects the cross-section of the flake, and the strength and thickness of its edge” (Tringham et al. 1974: 179, fig. 1). Since the ventral plane is rarely a real “plane”, an average plane is taken which best describes the ventral plane. In most cases, the central zone of the face provides the best approximation. The plane of the dorsal face is measured from the edge up to the closest ridge. The presence of retouch or scarring has no influence on the measurement of the spine plane angle or its value. The edge angle is measured in the outer millimetre of the edge (e.g., Odell 1977: 131). This angle is thus determined by the presence of retouch or scarring. All measurements are approximations (Burgess and Kvamme 1978; Dibble and Bernard 1980) and intended for only a relative categorisation. The presence or absence of protrusions may influence the formation and distribution of hafting wear. A protrusion may concentrate force in a limited area, which may result in a more intense trace formation. Edge shape is only included on a microscopic level, in direct relation to a specific (hafting) trace (see infra). The longitudinal surface curvature “refers to a convexity or concavity of the surface of a flake when viewed edge on, presuming that the norm is one in which the edge would appear horizontal” (Tringham et al. 1974: 180). When a stone tool is in contact with a hard haft material, the longitudinal curvature determines the amount of contact which takes place. When the curvature is strong, the contact is limited to the butt area and the area around the haft limit; when the curvature is reduced, the contact is almost complete. The curvature can also influence the risk of fractures: the more limited the contact with the haft, the less it is protected against fractures. Tools with a considerable curvature may also be difficult to haft, in particular in a male haft. Two types of longitudinal curvature are included (Table 3.5), one for the whole tool and another for the hafted part only. The same four descriptive categories are used, based on the amount of contact between the ventral surface and a supposed hard (and straight) haft material: – straight: nearly the whole ventral surface is in contact – twisted: the contact is only partial due to a light to moderate twist in the tool – light curve: the main contact is situated in the most proximal and most distal zone – curve: only the outer extremities are in contact The transversal surface curvature refers to the geometrical figure described in transverse cross-section: it refers to the morphology of the dorsal face and is determined by the number of ridges. It is important for hafting as it determines the amount of contact that can occur between the hafting material and the dorsal face. Four categories are used (Table 3.5): – triangle: only one ridge is present – sub-triangle: two ridges are present of which one protrudes more

28

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

– trapezoidal: two ridges are present with an equal protrusion – semi-convex: more ridges are present resulting in nearly a semi-circle when viewed in cross-section The ridges that are taken into account have a minimum length of approximately 2 cm. The short ridges near the butt are ignored. If the number of ridges changes over the dorsal face, the most dominant cross-section in the hafted area is inventoried. Tool thickness is a factor which contributes to the influence of cross-section. The butt protrusion refers to the face where the butt protrudes. Also when the original butt is absent (e.g., fracture), the protrusion of the proximal extremity is recorded in this category. A butt can protrude at the dorsal or ventral side, it can terminate in a point, in which case no real protruding side can be identified, or it can be straight (vertical), in which case there is no protrusion. Categories included are thus dorsal, ventral, point and straight (Table 3.5). Butt protrusion is important to take into account as traces are potentially concentrated on the protruding side of the butt, given that it is in closer contact with the haft material (depending on the hafting arrangement used). The effect is greatest when a stopping ridge is present on the (juxtaposed) haft. 2.5.2.6 Morphological adaptations Stone tools can be adapted to fit a certain haft. Certain morphological adaptations may thus provide indirect evidence of the fact that a tool was used hafted (Rots 2002c). Therefore, the relevance and necessity of certain adaptations for specific hafting arrangements need to be examined. A lot of ethnographic evidence exists (Clark 1958; Nissen and Dittemore 1974; Gallagher 1977; Hayden 1979a; Shott 1995), but on an archaeological level, the issue still needs to be demonstrated on a large scale. Morphological adaptations in view of hafting are expected to occur more frequently in the case of male hafting arrangements, given that the tool’s size needs to be adjusted to the size of the hole. The recording of morphological adaptations on experimental tools (Table 3.5) is evidently done merely in view of the evaluation of their value for a specific hafting arrangement; whether certain morphological adaptations can be truly linked with hafting needs to be addressed on an archaeological level. Numerous ethnographic examples exist of proximal thinning of stone tools in view of hafting (Clark 1958; Gallagher 1977; Rule and Evans 1985). When the bulb is too prominent or interferes with hafting, it can either be removed or thinned by retouching. Both the edges and the butt can serve as striking platforms. In the case of thinning, the area in which the bulb was formerly located is preserved, as well as at least part of the striking platform. One can decide to thin the dorsal face instead of the ventral one or both faces. As with proximal thinning, several ethnographic accounts exist of bulb removal in view of hafting (Clark 1958; Gallagher 1977; Rule and Evans 1985). An intentional fracture or intentional retouch removes a prominent or inconvenient bulb. At present, it appears to be the case

that systematic bulb removal is linked with particular hafting arrangements only, as was for instance demonstrated for a series of endscrapers from the Upper Palaeolithic of Verberie (France) (Rots 2005). Backing is defined as an abruptly retouched edge, potentially meant to blunt the edge to facilitate grasping or hafting: it may protect the hand, but it also increases adhesive properties when hafted with resin. If backing is linked with prehensile issues, only one lateral edge should be backed and it should be opposed to an unretouched edge. Backed blades and knives are thus mainly referred to. Archaeologically, sickle blades are obvious examples. Notches are defined as concavities produced intentionally with the aid of retouch. Notches can facilitate the attachment of a binding of some sort and may be linked with hafting. This is documented ethnographically (Rule and Evans 1985; Hall and Fullerton 1990), but up to now it was not yet demonstrated on an archaeological level. If a tang is created in view of hafting, it logically implies a male hafting arrangement. Not surprisingly, a tang is the feature that is most often assumed to be linked with hafting (Tixier 1967; Ferring 1975; Stordeur 1987a; Tillet 1995). Supportive archaeological wear evidence was recently obtained for the Upper Palaeolithic site of Maisières-Canal (Belgium) (Rots 2002c). A pseudo-tang refers to the lateral trimming of the hafted part without the formation of a real tang, but with a clear gradual convergence towards a narrow butt. The existence of lateral trimming for hafting purposes is supported ethnographically (Nissen and Dittemore 1974; Gallagher 1977; Rule and Evans 1985; Hall and Fullerton 1990), and archaeological evidence is also accumulating, as for the Upper Palaeolithic site of Verberie (France) (Rots 2005). Distal size reduction cannot always be identified easily, especially on an archaeological level. It refers to any reduction (e.g., unintentional or intentional fracture), excluding retouched working edges. Sickle blades are the most obvious examples. Size reduction is not expected to influence trace formation, but it is necessary for a correct morphological description. Intense resharpening of hafted tools has been frequently suggested as a factor which influences the morphology of the used zone (Hayden 1979a; Jardon-Giner and Sacchi 1994). The effect is caused by the presence of a haft: the part protruding from the haft gradually reduces following repeated resharpening, the striking platform is eventually so reduced in size that the angle of the removals increases (i.e., more abrupt retouch) and their position is affected (e.g., reduction of scraper-head curvature). Frequent resharpening may also lead to the superposition of (often) hinge- or step-terminating scars on thick tools (e.g., Australian adze slugs). 2.5.2.7 Macroscopic damage The presence or absence of macroscopic damage is inventoried on an analytical level, but some traits are included separately, given their importance for hafting (Table 3.5). Some forms of knapping, especially hard percussion, result in removals on the bulb. The stroke may also cause

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

very prominent percussion ripples and radiations; these are referred to as ridges. The presence of bulbar scars and ridges may cause a hafting trace concentration in those areas. For one tool either scars or ridges are recorded. The intensity of dorsal butt crushing (from knapping) is recorded. This feature is important for the visibility and formation of hafting traces: on an intensely crushed butt; subsequent scarring is difficult to observe. Four categories are included ranging from a poorly crushed dorsal butt (1) to a very intense, almost abraded, crushed dorsal butt (4). Distinct macroscopic scarring has frequently been observed round the haft limit, and it should be examined whether a link exists between this scarring and a particular hafting arrangement. It also needs to be verified whether other causes could lead to such patterned scarring: nonhafting related scars which could potentially be misinterpreted as caused by hafting are thus inventoried. This is based on their location around a potential haft limit only, independent of their perhaps distinctive characteristics for a particular cause. The purpose is only to evaluate the frequency of scarring in a zone where a haft limit could potentially be located. Hafting may lead to crushed ridges on the hafted part, in particular when there is direct contact with a hard haft material. All crushing in the hafted tool part is therefore inventoried, including crushing on the most prominent point(s) of the ridge(s) (in the hafted part). In both cases, the crushing intensity is measured on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (considerable). Factors other than hafting may potentially cause ridge crushing (e.g., anvil contact during retouching, knapping; cf. infra), such technological crushing is also inventoried. 2.5.2.8 Fractures An overview of fracture mechanisms can be consulted in Hayden (ed. 1979). The presence or absence of fractures is inventoried per tool part (IZ) and the fracture’s cause is included when known (Table 3.6). Given the importance of a potential relationship between hafting and fractures, not only is the location of the fracture inventoried, but also its initiation, termination, and whether other scarring is associated with it. These attributes should be sufficient for characterising hafting fractures and investigating whether they are distinctive from other fracture causes. 2.5.3 Analytical Levels While analytical procedures have been opposed to each other in many cases in the past (cf. chapter 1), a combination of different methods or levels of analysis is considered to be most fruitful. Each method has its advantages and shortcomings: one should try to take advantage of the positive aspects of each method and try to minimise the shortcomings by integrating more than one method (Van Gijn 1990). Therefore, macroscopic, low power and high power analyses are combined and compared. The kind of interpretation that can be obtained with each individual method is evaluated, next to its certainty level. The different attributes are arranged in a hierarchical way, since some attributes have more interpretative value than

29

others. Each magnification level is dealt with separately and trace attributes are described. No use was made of the scanning electron microscope. It is not useful for investigating patterning, certainly on an experimental level. It may, however, prove useful later on for supporting or contesting exact haft material identifications on archaeological tools. 2.5.3.1 Macroscopic analysis No equipment apart from an occasional hand lens (8x) was used for macroscopic analysis (Tables 4). Two types of traces are visible: damage (or scarring) and gloss. Their presence or absence is inventoried and their cause is inferred. All visible macroscopic damage is recorded, irrespective of its cause; retouch is excluded. Gloss comprises all macroscopically visible polish, including bright spots (see infra). Gloss appears as a shinier zone on the flint surface which is not natural (e.g., sickle gloss), or as tiny spots. Without magnification, no further differentiation within this category is possible. Some forms of gloss appeared to have an additive, residual character under magnification. This frequently occurred in the case of wood. When prolonged chemical cleaning did not succeed in removing the gloss, it was inventoried, but its presumed additive and residual nature was recorded. It is doubtful whether such forms of gloss would be preserved on archaeological tools. Other forms of gloss are more abrasive in nature (e.g., most bright spots) and these are likely to be preserved, even in less favourable conditions. 2.5.3.2 Low Power analysis A low power analysis is focussed mainly on edge damage (used as a synonym for scarring, chipping, etc.) for functional assessments, but the presence of polish and striations is also observed. The principles of low power analysis are discussed more fully elsewhere (Tringham et al. 1974; Odell 1977; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Odell 1980; 1981). Many discussions at the start of use-wear investigations concerned the value of this technique in comparison to high power analysis. It was frequently argued (Moss 1983a) that the loss of detail as a result of the lower magnification made this technique unreliable as a means to assess function. However, low power analysts never claimed to be able to identify exact materials worked and it has the advantage of being less time-consuming, which allows for larger and more meaningful assemblages. There is also no need to stabilise the tool during the analysis, allowing for continuous observation of the relationship between the traces and the tool’s edges. Procedure A stereoscopic binocular microscope Wild (M5-22827) was used with magnifications of 6x up to 100x. Magnifications of 25x and 50x were predominantly used to describe and interpret scarring. Given the absence of a trinocular microscope, pictures were taken with an Olympus DP-CAM-C3040 digital camera through one of the eyepieces.

30

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

No extensive cleaning procedure is required, but acetone or alcohol was used during the analysis to remove the remains of moulding clay (from high power analysis) or grease and to improve polish visibility. Trace attributes On a low power level, scarring is the most valuable trace category. Other traces are recorded only on a more general level. Edge Damage Edge damage (ED) is subdivided along the principles of Odell (1977, 1981a), with a few additions and specifications for hafting-induced scarring, especially with regard to scar distributions and patterns. Details concerning scar formation processes can be consulted elsewhere (Hayden 1979). The inventoried categories are summarised in annex I. In the detailed tables 6, attribute states are described per IZ on each experimental piece. Scar intensity is evaluated on a scale from 1 (light, Pl. 3) to 4 (considerable, Pl. 4). For scar morphology, the divisions proposed by Odell (1977: 113, 1981) are used for categories 1 to 6, and categories 7 to 9 are added (Fig. 2.11). The first five categories – scalar (Pl. 5), trapezoidal (Pl. 6), triangular (Pl. 7), rectangular (Pl. 8), irregular – speak for themselves; they are removed on one surface. Sliced scars are half-moon shaped removals which cut through both surfaces about equally (Pl. 9). Nibbling scars were added in order to refer to very tiny scars which are removed on one surface. They are too small to be divided into one of the morphological categories. Edge crushing consists of a superposition of several scars, obliterating individual scar morphologies (Pl. 10). One could describe it as a splintering or scattering of the edge under pressure. A last category – diverse – was added (though rarely used) for the occasional occurrence of scars with differing morphologies within a small portion of the edge.

Figure 2.11. Scar morphology categories

An additional category providing some more morphological detail proved necessary for hafting traces. A number of special morphologies recurred, suggesting a potential diagnostic value for hafting. This category was added later and there are no data for some tools. In all instances, it is

a further subdivision of another morphological category or a scar on the border between two morphologies. Balloontype scalar scars logically resemble a balloon (Pl. 11), the initiation is narrow, while the main part is very round (scalar). Elongated scars are more elongated than normally expected (Pl. 8), while oblique scars have one of the above morphologies, but then in an oblique fashion with regard to the edge (Pl. 12). Some scars start as a sliced scar, but proceed into a scalar one on one surface (Pl. 13; Pl. 14). They thus cut through both surfaces in an unequal way. A scar type on the edge between scalar and triangular scars is a scar with a narrow initiation and a sudden widening (Pl. 15). It resembles an inverse triangle and a pronounced scalar scar with very pointed corners. The last category is abraded crushing (Pl. 4): the crushing is rounded at its outer edges. Scar initiations can be wide/diffuse (Pl. 12) or narrow/ clear (Pl. 16), both categories are subdivided. One subtype of narrow initiations has a slight dip or cone (Pl. 11; Pl. 15), resulting in an enlarged initiation width. A subtype of diffuse initiation starts in a rather vertical or straight way, while curving on the opposite face (Pl. 13; Pl. 14). It is generally associated with sliced into scalar scars. Some scars have a curved initiation (Pl. 17), or the more pronounced twisted or bent initiation (Pl. 18). The latter is often the case for sliced (hafting) scars. Scar terminations have frequently been described elsewhere (Tringham et al. 1974; Odell 1977; Ho Ho Committee 1979; Fischer et al. 1984). The traditional categories are included: snap, feather (Pl. 19), hinge (Pl. 20) and step (Pl. 5; Pl. 15). Vertical is added for scars where no clear termination is present: it falls between snap and feather termination (e.g., frequently for sliced scars; Pl. 21). Superposition concerns obliterated terminations due to superposing scars (Pl. 22). Scar size is inventoried on a scale from 1 (small, Pl. 23) to 4 (very large, Pl. 24). Distinctions are based on approximate relative sizes: small = less than about 0.5 mm, medium-sized = between 0.5 and 1 mm, large = between 1 and 2 mm, very large = larger than 2 mm. Scar depth is observed on a relative scale. Three categories are included: flat, superficial scars (Pl. 25), scars with a moderate depth, and deep scars (Pl. 26). Scar definition along the rear border is supposed to be closely associated with a certain morphology (Odell 1977). Nevertheless, it was included, divided into three categories: ill-defined, medium-defined and well-defined. During the analysis, scar intrusiveness (i.e., extent towards the inner surface) appeared to possess potential diagnostic value. There are three categories: intrusive (Pl. 27), moderate and abrupt (low intrusion, Pl. 28). There is a tendency for some scar morphologies to be associated with specific intrusiveness; sliced scars in particular are mostly abrupt. Ten categories are included for the distribution of scars along the edge (Fig. 2.12; annex I). The first (0) is used when only one scar is present. The next four categories provide the general description of the distribution pattern, while the following categories are more detailed. The addition of

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

even and uneven is size-related: even refers to scars that are more or less equally sized (Pl. 29), uneven to the opposite. Use scars may potentially be more evenly sized than hafting ones, as a result of differences in pressure distribution. A run-together distribution refers to scars which touch each other, while wide scars do not touch. Alternating scars change face, while bifacial scars are present on both faces. It is also recorded whether scars are distributed continuously over the part of the edge in question, or whether they occur in distinct patches (with or without wider dispersed scars between the patches).

31

portion, a convex, straight or concave edge, and a ridge. The difference between a protrusion and a convex zone rests in its relationship with the surrounding area. A protrusion is sudden or abrupt, while a convex edge protrudes in a gradual way. The same goes for intrusions and concavities. Sometimes, different categories, such as a protrusion and a straight edge, are combined. This refers to a more or less straight part of the edge which protrudes. Also, the description does not refer to the whole edge, so within a generally convex edge concave zones can still occur. When traces occur over a larger portion of the edge, including protrusions and intrusions, the edge is referred to as straight. This corresponds to the absence of any impact from edge morphology.

Figure 2.12. Scar distribution categories Figure 2.13. Scar pattern categories

Also for the scar pattern, some more detail was necessary to characterise hafting scars as some patterns appeared to have distinctive values for a specific hafting arrangement. Again, this category was added later and for some tools no data are available. The nine categories included are somewhat diverse in nature (Fig. 2.13), but also include a “0” for cases in which no more detail can be provided. Scars can terminate at a well-defined line close to the edge (1), or at a line which is more or less defined (a slight undulation is allowed; 2). Large scars can have smaller ones at their initiation (3), or they can be crushed at their initiation (4; Pl. 30). Scars can be distributed in a skewed saw pattern (5), which refers to a scar series in which the most distal scar is the largest and the adjacent – more proximal – scars are gradually smaller, followed again by a large scar with adjacent gradually smaller scars, etc. The inverse pattern (6), the largest scar being most proximal, is called an inverse skewed saw pattern. Scars can form a clear intrusion or notch on a macroscopic level (7), and the largest scar(s) can be located in the centre of a patch (8) or at the extremities of the patch (9). Trace association includes a reference to the trace type(s) that is/are observed in association with the described trace. This is important for the evaluation of recurring combinations of trace categories. A last scar attribute consists of a short description of the edge morphology of the area where the traces are observed. Apart from an undefined category, six descriptions are possible for scarring: a protruding or intruding

An interpretation is subsequently provided. For a low power analysis, the determination of the responsible material can theoretically not be more specific than the relative hardness class (soft, medium-soft, medium-hard, hard) to which it belongs. Given the experimental nature of the tools, the exact material responsible was nevertheless added. The numerical subdivision of the latter is based on the system proposed by Vaughan and Plisson (1986: 180) (cf. annex I). In general, only hafting traces are inventoried (apart from specific experiments devoted to other causes), but the system is sufficiently flexible to include all valid causes. This subdivision is again based on the principles of the system of Vaughan and Plisson (1986). The cause numbers are also used in the more general tables and they are subdivided if necessary (cf. annex I). The edge morphology can have an important influence on the localisation of scarring; therefore a small category is included for a personal assessment (yes/no) of the impact of the edge morphology on the trace formation process. The trace interpretability is evaluated on a scale from 1 (low certainty) to 4 (high certainty). Polish, abrasion, striations, bright spots Only the visibility of polish, abrasion, striations, and bright spots is evaluated, based on a magnification of 25x. These traces are characterised on a high power level when more distinctive features are visible. Polish is considered

32

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

visible when shinier (or, more rarely, duller) areas can be distinguished from the rest of the surface. Abrasion is edge rounding and surface smoothing. When sufficiently developed, it can be visible on a low power level. Striations are visible as linear features, while bright spots are visible as shiny stains or patches, isolated or grouped. 2.5.3.3 High Power analysis In a high power analysis, the main focus is traditionally on polish, but attention is also paid to edge rounding, striations and, to a lesser extent, scarring. To these trace categories bright spots are added as a separate entity. While bright spots are basically a form of polish, it is considered relevant for hafting to separate bright spots from polish (Rots 2002b). Scarring is mainly analysed on a low power level; on a high power level, merely the intensity of scarring is described. Details of the principles of high power (use-wear) analysis can be found elsewhere (Keeley 1974a; Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985). Procedure All analyses were performed with a metallurgical microscope Olympus BX60M (MPlan 5, MPlan 10, MSPlan 20, MSPlan 50), using incident light and bright field illumination. Photographs were taken with an Olympus DP10 digital camera, generally at a magnification of 200x (if not stated otherwise). Chemical cleaning of stone artefacts has been somewhat problematic in the past (Moss 1986b). Analysts discovered that strong acidic or alkaline solutions can affect polish morphology and even make it disappear (Plisson 1983; 1986; Plisson and Mauger 1988). However, experimental tools often show residues or mineral adherents which obliterate polishes and are only effectively removed with chemical cleaning. A good balance should thus be found between removing obscuring adherents and not affecting polish morphology. Low acidic solutions and short cleaning procedures have proven not to affect polish morphology and only to remove superposing residue (Keeley 1980; Moss 1983a; Plisson 1985c). On archaeological tools, residues should not simply be removed. Preferentially, a residue analysis should be undertaken before cleaning or any other analysis, to avoid the loss of important data (e.g., blood, DNA) (Fullagar 1998; Kimura et al. 2001; Shanks et al. 2001). All experimental tools were cleaned in a 10% hydrochloric acid solution (0,1 N) for about 15 minutes to remove adhering residues. After immersion, they were washed off with distilled water and/or in running tap water (Van Gijn 1990: 54). This cleaning procedure has proven its reliability (Rodon Borras 1990). In all cases, cleaning procedures were kept short to prevent any possible alteration. During analysis all tools were cleaned with acetone or alcohol, both of which are harmless for microwear traces. They only remove grease from fingers and remains of moulding clay used to fix the tool. Acetone is stronger than alcohol and can potentially remove adhering hafting residues. For the experimental tools hafted with resin, acetone was necessary for removing the resin. If much resin

adhered, the tool was generally immersed in acetone to dissolve it, given that cleaning with cotton wool immersed in acetone risked causing friction wear from resin particles which are rubbed against the tool surface. Trace attributes The five trace categories include polish, rounding or smoothing, scarring, striations and bright spots. Not all of these are described with equal detail (e.g., scarring). For all trace attributes (on a low and high power level) a similar recording procedure was followed. As with the inventorying of edge scarring, the tables 6 include the piece and trace number, the general and exact position of the trace, a detailed trace description, and an interpretation. A list of recorded trace attributes can be found in annex I. Polish Polish refers to an altered zone on a stone tool which is visible as a shinier or rougher area in comparison with the surrounding surface. It is generally associated with other trace attributes, particularly when it is formed as a result of use. The polish distribution along the edge, ridge or over the surface is inventoried as one of six possibilities. A spotlike distribution refers to a poorly developed stage of polish formation, in which polish is rare. A discontinuous distribution is better developed, as the spots are now interconnected (Pl. 31). When no interruption can be distinguished, the distribution is considered continuous (Pl. 32), which necessarily counts for the whole edge part in question. For a linear trace, the linear character dominates and the polish forms a real band along the edge. Patches are larger than spots; they are more like stains. Their larger nature suggests that polish patches represent a specific distribution pattern (e.g., due to a low contact area between stone tool and haft) and not a less developed stage, although patches may interconnect into a larger polished zone. Patches are most frequently observed on surfaces. Polish morphology refers to the appearance of the polish and can be divided into two general categories: smooth (Pl. 32) and rough (Pl. 33). These can be subdivided, mainly based on features which gradually appear with increasing polish development. A category of “unidentifiable minute spots” is always necessary to allow one to classify potential invisible morphologies. Pitted refers to the presence of tiny pits in the morphology (cf. bone use polish). Domed refers to the presence of larger, rounded holes in a generally smooth morphology (cf. wood use polish). Gentle undulations (troughs, crests; cf. wood use polish) or clear undulations (melted snow, cf. antler use polish, Keeley 1980: 56) generally appear only when the polish is well developed. A flat polish morphology speaks for itself and is frequent for bright spots (see infra). A grooved polish refers to the presence of tiny linear scratches within the polish. They are too small to be referred to as striations, and they are integrated in the polish. Polish brightness is classified in one of four categories, from dull to very bright. It is a subjective, relative assessment and no attempt is made to measure brightness on an

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

absolute scale (Dumont 1982a) as its reliability is doubted (e.g., raw material influence). The polish development is evaluated on a (relative) scale of one to four, from poor up to extensive. It is based on the development range of hafting polish, not use polish. The degree of polish linkage is important, not only for evaluating the development stage, but also for determining the hafting material. On the one hand, the better developed a polish is, the more it intrudes into the lower zones of the microtopography. On the other hand, a harder material results in polish which is primarily located on the higher points of the microtopography from where it gradually intrudes, while a softer material polish is more linked up from the start. Four categories are included. Poor linkage refers to the presence of spots distributed over the highest points in the polished area. Moderately linked polishes are present on the highest points of the microtopography, while highly linked polishes intrude into the lower zones. A differential development can be identified for the latter. Very high linkage is kept for polishes which are completely linked up and for which the development between the higher and lower zones is similar. Sickle use gloss is an obvious example of a polish which can quickly reach this stage. Polish type refers to the process involved in polish formation. This is a subjective assessment, given that a high power microscopic examination is not the appropriate means, electron microscopes (Anderson-Gerfaud 1980; Mansur-Franchomme 1983) or physico-chemical analyses (Christensen and Walter 1991; Christensen et al. 1992; Christensen et al. 1993; Christensen 1998; Christensen et al. 1998; Šmit et al. 1998; Šmit et al. 1999) are more suitable. However, some polishes have a clearly abrasive or additive character under magnification, and this is a valid observation. The polish extension differs from its distribution; it refers to its exact location on the tool, either limited to the outer edge or intruding into the surface. Distribution refers to the polish continuity over the zone in question. For a correct description of the extension, three general groups are made. A polish can be limited to the outer edge or ridge (Pl. 34, Pl. 35), it can intrude into the surface and be present next to the edge or ridge, or it can be limited to the surface only. These are general categories which can be found in most use-wear registration systems, perhaps in different terms. It may be useful to mention that poor extension on the outer edge or ridge could also be termed a thin line along the edge, and a high extension a band along the edge. More detailed categories were considered necessary during the investigation. When a polish is present on the outer edge and inner surface, it is not always in the same fashion. The polish can be better developed on the outer edge than on the inner surface (“differential extension”), or the development can be similar. A separate category was added to refer to very extensive polishes which intrude far into the surface, but this group is not subdivided (cf. well-developed sickle use gloss). For hafting traces, an additional category was added because hafting traces are often located on the higher points of the microtopography, but, instead of gradually

33

intruding into the surface like use-wear traces, they follow the microtopography inwards without intruding more in the lower zones around the outer edge than they do inward (Pl. 33, Pl. 36). Within each of these groups (excluding the one referring to the extensive presence far inward), three subdivisions are made based on the amount of polish present (limited – moderate – extensive). This results in 16 possible extensions. The following attributes correspond to what was described earlier for edge scarring. The first category includes the traces that can be found in association with the polish described. It does not necessarily include all traces present in a given area, only the ones which are in clear association with the polish. For instance, the edge on which polish occurs can be rounded, which is a valid association; when the polish occurs next to a rounded zone in the same area, the association is irrelevant. Two last attributes relate to the edge or surface morphology in the polished zone. It is obvious that the morphology may have an important influence on the occurrence and exact polish characteristics. This is evaluated on a simple binomial 0/1 basis. Nine morphologies are included; those for the edge morphology are identical to those mentioned for scarring, be it on a different scale given the magnification: a protruding / projecting / prominent zone (1), an intruding zone / depression (2), a convex (3), straight (4) or concave edge (5), a ridge (6), a concave (7), flat (8), or convex surface (9). Again, combinations are possible, such as a protrusion in a straight edge (41), or a protrusion of the ridge (61). The corresponding figures are logically combined.15 The interpretative categories are identical to those explicated for scarring and include a reference to the material responsible, the cause and the interpretability of the polish (and the influence of the edge morphology) (see annex I). The polish formation process is not dealt with here, but it is a heavily researched topic (Del Bene 1979; Kamminga 1979; Del Bene 1980b; Bradley and Clayton 1983; MansurFranchomme 1983; Unger-Hamilton 1984; Levi-Sala 1988; Christensen and Walter 1991; Fullagar 1991; Christensen et al. 1992; Christensen et al. 1993; Yamada 1993; Christensen 1998; Christensen et al. 1998; Kimball et al. 1998; Sala et al. 1998; Šmit et al. 1998; Šmit et al. 1999). Rounding and smoothing Edge rounding is the abrasion or dulling of the edge. Generally, the most prominent points are most affected. Surface smoothing is the abrasion of the surface, first aimed at the most prominent points of the microtopography. Both rounding and smoothing do not really vary much and a few attributes are sufficient for a clear description. Most of these were mentioned earlier for polish: distribution,

15

In some cases, polish is inventoried on, for instance, the ventral edge, while the extension is referred to as “on the surface only” and the description of the zone morphology as “flat surface”. In such cases, the trace is located just next to the edge, which differs from the “real” surface.

34

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

development, type, extension, and association of rounding or smoothing, and edge or surface morphology of the zone in which it occurs (see annex I). The interpretation of rounding or smoothing includes the identification of the material and cause responsible, and an evaluation of the influence of edge morphology and of the general interpretability (see annex I). Details concerning the formation process of rounding and smoothing are included in Hayden (ed. 1979). Edge damage Edge damage is described in detail under low power magnification. Only the scarring intensity is recorded on a high power level, on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (extensive). Striations Striations are linear features that occur either isolated or in association with other trace attributes. The descriptive attributes for striations largely differ between analysts, especially in their detail. Striations do not provide the most significant evidence for hafting, but a more or less detailed description is nevertheless included based on the work of Mansur-Franchomme (Mansur-Franchomme 1986). Only the attributes which differ from previously mentioned ones are included. On a descriptive level, the number of striations is evaluated on a scale of four, from one striation, a few, moderate up to many. Their morphology is divided into straight (Pl. 37; Pl. 38), curved, or varied (non-preferential mixture of straight and curved striations) on the one hand, and regular (“ruban”, cf. Mansur-Franchomme 1986: 98) or irregular striation edges (“fougère” cf. Mansur-Franchomme 1986: 98) on the other hand. The striation characteristics include striations with a rough or smooth bottom, filled-in, grooved, and striation-like linear polish. It is subjectively assessed whether these striations appear to be abrasive or additive. The width of striations is approximated by the categories narrow (< 5 μm), medium (5-10 μm) and large (> 10 μm). Striation intrusiveness is divided into their depth – superficial or deep – and their length – short, medium or long. Whether striations are interrupted is added. In the latter case, a set of short or moderate striations can be inventoried as a long interrupted striation if they are a continuation of each other. An aspect specific to striations is their orientation with regard to the edge. This type of orientation is opted for instead of the frequently used orientation in relation to the tool’s axis, since it is believed to be more useful for hafting. This choice mainly has an effect for striations on tool extremities like a scraper-head or the dorsal / ventral butt, where it can prevent unnecessary confusion. On the surface, the orientation is determined with regard to the lateral edges. Striations can be parallel, oblique or perpendicular to the edge (Pl. 37; Pl. 38). A diverse category is added for groups of striations without preferential orientation (Pl. 39). It refers to a real mixture, because a combination of a few orientations can be recorded with the use of combined figures. The extension, association (e.g., bright spot in striation: Pl. 40) and edge or surface morphology are described

according to the principles described above (see annex I). The interpretation of striations includes the identification of the material and cause responsible, and an evaluation of their general interpretability (see annex I). For more detail on the striation formation process, reference is made to other authors (Del Bene 1979; Mansur 1982; MansurFranchomme 1986). Bright spots “Bright spots” or “frictional spots” consist of smooth, highly reflective polish spots, often visible macroscopically. Bright spots have been observed by many and were generally considered not to be interpretable (Moss 1983b; Vaughan 1985) or to be evidence of post-depositional alterations (Levi-Sala 1986b). Different types have been distinguished, and it has been suggested that these types correspond with different formation processes, post-depositional in nature (Stapert 1976; Vaughan 1985; Levi-Sala 1986a; 1986b; 1996). Moss distinguished two types of bright spots, she attributed the first, flat in nature, to natural processes and the second, “Polish G”, raised in nature, to curation, maybe hafting (Moss 1983b). Juel Jensen argued that bright spots may be linked with hafting, in particular the friction with resin (tempered with hard particles) in the haft (Juel Jensen 1994). She does not, however, mention experimental evidence to substantiate her interpretation. Several experiments have been undertaken in an attempt to reproduce (natural) bright spots (Levi-Sala 1986b; 1988; 1996). Levi-Sala managed to reproduce flat bright spots by friction of flint on flint with water as a medium. Length of rubbing time and especially flint microtopography and pressure seemed to be important factors, while water was judged essential (Levi-Sala 1986b: 234). Her trampling experiment did not produce the expected bright spots, but she managed to reproduce flat non-striated bright spots by immersion in a solution of distilled water and Calcium Carbonate at about 80-90°C. Such bright spots were always produced in combination with sheen or patina (Levi-Sala 1996: 62-64). Other analysts concentrated on the impact of chemical action on use-wear traces, but bright spots were not observed (Plisson and Mauger 1988). In all cases, these experiments resulted in the advice of caution towards polishes on artefacts showing bright spots, since these might be the result of the same mechanical or chemical post-depositional process. I consider bright spots to be produced in regions subjected to very high friction, either as a result of natural causes or due to human action. Hafting bright spots can be identified based on their restriction to a particular tool part opposite the working edge and based on the associated traces, e.g., scarring (Pl. 41-43) or striations (Pl. 44) (Rots 2002b). Experiments (see infra) allowed hafting bright spots to be distinguished from all other causes (Rots 2002b; 2003a), and I strongly believe that bright spots are of major importance for identifying hafting. Most descriptive attributes correspond to those included for polish. This should not be a surprise, as bright spots are a particular form of polish. In many instances, they can be referred to as localised well-developed polish spots. The

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

only specific trace attribute is the number of bright spots. This is evaluated on a scale of four, from one spot (Pl. 45), a few (Pl. 46), up to many (Pl. 47). When many spots are present, they are no longer necessarily recognisable as real spots: they may form a large inter-linked zone (Pl. 48, 49). The size of the bright spots in question is included in the same category and is evaluated on a scale of three, from small up to large. Descriptions of bright spot morphology, brightness, development, degree of linkage, type, extension, association and edge morphology in the bright spot zone correspond to what was noted earlier for polish (see annex I). The interpretative attributes correspond to those for polish. The material responsible, cause and interpretability of the bright spots are noted, including the influence of edge morphology (see annex I). Use-wear traces Although prehension and hafting traces are the focus of this study, use-wear traces are inventoried. After all, usewear traces may provide clues to the prehensile mode and may thus form indirect evidence of hafting (Beyries 1997; Beyries and Rots 2008; In press). The types of use-wear traces and their morphological characteristics are not of particular importance for hafting, but their exact distribution pattern is (Table 7). Recording is therefore focussed on the general use-wear distribution, more particularly whether traces are centralised or de-centralised to the left or right, and in which zone they are best developed. Logically, this corresponds with the zone in which traces are most extensive. Use-wear development is evaluated on a scale of four. This slightly duplicates the general inventorying table, but here the figure is conclusive for the whole tool, not for an IZ. And finally, the exact intrusion of the use-wear traces with reference to the central point of the working edge is approximated on a scale of four, on the dorsal and ventral faces, and the left and right edges. For a used burin tip, low intrusion corresponds to a use-wear extent of less than 0.5 cm away from the burin tip, moderate intrusion of 0.5 to 1 cm, high intrusion from 1 up to 1.5 cm and very high intrusion is more than 1.5 cm. If some zones show a greater intrusion than others, the use-wear traces are logically de-centralised to some extent. For a scraper, the central point of the scraper-head is the reference point and differing intrusion (i.e., inward into the surface) left and right of this point indicates de-centralised use-wear traces. However, the scraper-head morphology needs to be taken into account for this evaluation. It is divided into four equal parts round the central point next to each lateral edge. Low intrusion remains within the central zone, while moderate intrusion intrudes into the second section. High intrusion reaches up to the lateral edge and very high intrusion intrudes into the lateral edge. A comparison of the use-wear intrusion between the dorsal and ventral faces permits an approximation of the angle at which the tool was held. When traces are equally extensive on both faces, the tool was held in a perpendicular way with regard to the material being worked. In most cases, the tool is held slightly obliquely towards one side resulting in better trace development and intrusion on one

35

of the faces. Given that the use of relative categories may not always lead to distinctive results, a specific category was added mentioning the face on which the traces are best developed and most intrusive. For certain tool uses, attention needs to be paid to the potential impact of friction with loosening worked material parts for producing intrusive use-wear on the non-contact face – unrelated to the working angle. In the case of wood working for instance, shavings can slide against the non-contact face and produce intrusive wear, while the tool is held obliquely towards the other face. 2.5.4 Practical issues regarding data presentation To avoid as many descriptions as possible, most data are summarised in tables. In chapter 3, descriptions are more extensive and tools are frequently dealt with individually. In the following chapters, descriptions are more general in nature and the reader is referred to the tables for more detail (see list of tables). These tables should be used in combination with the text and are included on the CD-rom. Only for the first chapters are references to the tables frequently included. In the text, small tables are regularly included which contain an overview of the intensity of a particular trace per tool part. These tables are based on Tables 4 and 5. The intensity is measured on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (extensive) and these data are included in the tables as grey values (i.e., for chapter 5-6). Poor trace intensities remain white, moderate intensities turn light grey, high intensities turn moderately grey, and extensive intensities become dark grey. When no traces other than hafting traces occur, tables are simplified by leaving out the exact trace cause: i.e., a hafting trace becomes “1” instead of “401”. Tools the distal part of which was hafted have no impact on the inventorying in the tables since these tools were inverted during recording as if their proximal parts were hafted. Abbreviations used are included in annex I. Small abstract figures are frequently used in order to illustrate the trace patterning observed (Fig. 2.14). These figures represent the dorsal and ventral faces of an idealised tool. On hafted tools, a hypothetical haft limit is visualised. All markings represent trace concentrations. On edges and ridges, the markings consist of ellipses and the like, while on surfaces textures are generally used. Solid lines or dark textures refer to dominant concentrations, while dotted lines or light textures refer to secondary concentrations. VENTRAL

DORSAL

ridge edge

Figure 2.14. Example of abstract figure for recording of trace pattern

36

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

When only one abstract figure is included, it is usually a representation of the dorsal face, but is in fact considered to be a summary of the traces present on both faces. In such cases, this is specifically stated. Aside from the tables, the CD-rom also includes pictures of the experimental setting and the hafted and de-hafted experimental tools. These pictures are included mainly for documentation purposes. The CD-rom can be accessed by double-clicking “StartPage.html” and following the links provided.

When tables are included concerning the trace distribution over different tool parts and the number of tool parts in which a specific trace attribute occurs (especially in chapters 5-6), subdivisions of tool parts are not taken into account as this would result in an overestimation. The problem is mainly relevant for polish. Calculated percentages are always mere approximations and they should not give the false impression that exact data are being dealt with. Finally, tool numbers vary for each topic as the maximum number of relevant tools is included when possible.

3. PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

In order to prove incontestably that prehension and hafting traces are produced and interpretable, an answer needs to be provided to a few basic questions: 1. Are prehension and hafting traces formed? 2. At what stage are hafting traces formed? 3. Can hafting wear be distinguished from wear produced by external factors? 4. Can hafting wear be distinguished from use-wear? 5. Can hafting wear be distinguished from other prehensile wear? 6. Does prehension wear have a recurring pattern? 7. Does hafting wear have a recurring pattern? Consequently: 8. Are prehension and hafting traces interpretable? 9. What is the minimal use duration to allow interpretation?

3.1

ARE PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES FORMED?

To test whether prehension and hafting traces are produced, it is sufficient to analyse the stone tool before and after it was used hand-held / hafted; when the results from the latter analysis differ from the first, the issue is proven. Two procedures are followed. In the first test, tools are drawn (not analysed) before use and it is examined whether macroscopic wear, in particular scarring, forms. It is a

Figure 3.1. Exp. 25/1, hand-held burin: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent scarring that is produced as a result of contact with the hand

straightforward procedure which does not demand great time investment. Seven hafted stone tools are included (exp. 1/10, 9/2, 9/3, 25/2 – 25/5), and one hand-held tool (exp. 25/1). Different use motions, materials worked and hafting arrangements are included (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2; also included in annex II). These tools are only analysed macroscopically. A second procedure involves preliminary microscopic analysis, which allows for the comparison of two sets of microscopic data (i.e., before and after use). The photographic documentation is unfortunately problematic: ideally, one should have a photograph of the same spot on the tool before and after use, but it is quite difficult to know in advance where the microscopic traces will form. Tools were thus photographed in as much detail as possible before and after hafted use. Only one tool, exp. 19/6A, is used to examine whether microscopic hafting traces form, which is of course to be expected once macroscopic traces are found. One tool is considered sufficient as abundant data are included in later chapters. 3.1.1 Macroscopic analysis Experiment 25 is used for the investigation of the formation of scarring (Table 4.1). One person used all the tools (burins) to groove hard animal matter for an approximately equal time (25 minutes). On the hand-held tool, exp. 25/1, only a few macroscopic scars were formed on the most proximal dorsal left edge (Fig. 3.1).

Figure 3.2. Exp. 25/2, burin wrapped with bindings: the transverse line represents the haft limit; the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

38

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Figure 3.3. Exp. 25/3, burin wrapped with bindings: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

Figure 3.4. Exp. 25/4, burin hafted in male split antler: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

On the wrapped tool, exp. 25/2, a few small macroscopic scars were formed on the ventral medial left edge and a larger one near the ventral butt (Fig. 3.2). On the wrapped tool, exp. 25/3, some small scars were formed on the dorsal most proximal left edge and on the ventral right medial edge (Fig. 3.3; Pl. 50-51), and also one small scar on the dorsal proximal right edge. On the male split hafted tool, exp. 25/4, macroscopic scars were formed on the dorsal medial left edge, dorsal proximal right edge and on the ventral proximal right edge (Fig. 3.4; Pl. 52). On the male hafted tool, exp. 25/5, several macroscopic scars were formed (Fig. 3.5): on the dorsal left edge, at the exact haft limit (Pl. 53) and more proximal (Pl. 54), and on the ventral right edge at the exact haft limit and on a more proximal protrusion. On the ventral left edge a series of tiny scars can be distinguished, both proximal and medial (Pl. 55). This small test demonstrates that macroscopic scarring forms as a result of holding the tool during use. Macroscopic scarring proves to be more abundant on tools used in a haft in comparison to others, and only on the hafted tools does the scarring permit one to define an approximate haft limit (especially on exp. 25/5), even in the case of a wrapping. Finally, direct contact with a male haft leads to more intense scarring than all other tested prehensile modes, no doubt due to the direct contact with a hard material. The three remaining experimental tools, exp. 1/10, 9/2 and 9/3, provide further evidence of the formation of macroscopic prehensile wear. They were all hafted in a juxtaposed arrangement and used for adzing, the first on wood, and the last two on earth (Table 1.1). A moderate amount of scarring formed on the dorsal face of exp. 1/10 and aside from the ventral right most proximal edge, scarring is

Figure 3.5. Exp. 25/5, burin hafted in male antler: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

more limited on the ventral face (Fig. 3.6; Table 4.1). This shows that a juxtaposed haft results in intense scarring, but that the scarring intensity differs between the dorsal and ventral faces (contra male hafting). For both exp. 9/2 and exp. 9/3, the stone tool width is greater than the haft width (Table 1.1, 3.3, 3.5). Scarring is restricted to the dorsal edges (Fig. 3.7, 3.8), which confirms the differing scarring pattern between the two faces observed on exp. 1/10. It also supports the view that the face in contact with the haft shows less scarring. Scarring is more reduced on these two tools in comparison to exp.

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

Figure 3.6. Exp. 1/10, scraper hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft, with its ventral face in contact with the haft: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

39

Figure 3.8. Exp. 9/3, blade hafted on a juxtaposed antler haft: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

doubt about the presence of a haft. On the grooving tools, gloss is restricted to the proximal part, while on adzing tools it is often more abundant in the medial zone. No real preference for a particular face is observed. The gloss pattern allows for the identification of a haft limit on all adzing tools, which suggests that the use motion may be a factor in this.

Figure 3.7. Exp. 9/2, scraper hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting

1/10, a fact which may be a result of the different material being worked. A second macroscopic trace which may form during hafted use is gloss, but its significance is more difficult to evaluate. However, gloss which was not removed after substantial cleaning was considered to be potentially valuable. On the experimental stone tools, a clear gloss pattern is produced on tools mounted on or in a haft, and all hafted tools show at least some gloss (Table 4.2). Gloss formation appears not to be restricted to one hafting arrangement or material. The most intense gloss is present on exp. 1/10 (next to intense scarring). The hafting gloss formation on exp. 9/2 and 9/3 is limited (cf. scarring), but the use gloss is abundant (i.e., earth working). The distinctive use-wear limit leaves no

3.1.2 Microscopic analysis Exp. 19/6A was hafted with its dorsal face against a juxtaposed bone haft on which it was fixed with the aid of leather bindings (Table 1.1). It was used to scrape soaked antler. Before hafting, hardly anything was observed: no macroscopic traces (Tables 4.5 and 4.6) and, microscopically, there were retouch striations on the ventral distal edges, striations from anvil contact on the dorsal distal and medial ridges (Table 5.5), and some minor knapping damage on the butt. After hafting, use and de-hafting, the macro- and microscopic trace pattern significantly differs. Macroscopic hafting scars formed on the dorsal proximal and medial edges and on the ventral proximal edges (Table 4.1) and a macroscopic gloss had formed on the dorsal proximal and medial edges (Table 4.2). On a microscopic level, two types of traces formed: polish and edge scarring (Tables 5.1). Polish is present on most edges and bone haft polish and leather binding polish can be distinguished (Table 6.19 polish). The best-developed and most extensive polish is present on the dorsal ridges and in the proximal zone. This corresponds to the areas in which most pressure is exerted during use. Scarring is most extensive on the left edge (both dorsal and ventral) given that the medial right edge was retouched. (Table 6.19 scarring). Scarring consists of scalar and trapezoidal scars in the main, with diffuse, sometimes curved, initiations and feather and step terminations. Scars are overall small and occur in a run-together pattern.

40

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

3.1.3 Conclusion Macro- and microscopic prehensile wear was proved to form and a number of variables seem to influence its formation: the hafting arrangement, the use motion, the material being worked, the stone tool width with regard to haft width, the face in contact with the haft, retouch and edge angle. Prehensile wear is thus not only produced, it also varies depending on a number of variables. When this variation proves to be recurring, it may allow a distinction to be drawn between hafting arrangements.

3.2

AT WHICH STAGE ARE HAFTING TRACES FORMED?

There are three possible moments of hafting trace formation: during hafting, during hafted use or during de-hafting. The first and last moments are inseparable if the tool is to be analysed. Two stages thus need to be examined: during the hafting process or during hafted use. The latter was investigated in the previous paragraph, so here attention is focussed on the question whether some hafting traces may be produced during the hafting process itself. If not, all traces are necessarily produced during hafted use, indicating that use is a condition for allowing the identification of hafting. If traces occur, their number and intensity need to be compared with what is observed after hafted use in order to determine whether one moment is dominant for trace formation. A rather straightforward experiment is again possible: the tool needs to be drawn and analysed after production and again after hafting (and de-hafting). Eight experimental tools are included, grouped in sets of two. Four hafting arrangements are represented: a juxtaposed hafting on wood (exp. 27/16, 28/1), a male direct hafting in antler (exp. 27/1, 28/3), a male split hafting in wood (exp. 27/4, 28/2), and a male split hafting in antler (exp. 27/14, 28/4) (Table 1.1). Exp. 27/14 is a particular case, as there was only an unsuccessful attempt to insert the tool into its haft (the stone tool was too thick). Two moments of potential trace formation are confronted: before hafting and after de-hafting, without any intermediate use. The data recorded during the initial analysis (i.e., before hafting) are included in tables 4.5, 4.6, and 5.5. Data recorded after hafting can be found in tables, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 6.27, 6.28. 3.2.1

Macroscopic analysis

3.2.1.1 Before hafting Knapping scarring was observed on the dorsal butts (Table 4.5). Aside from showing remnants of platform preparation, the proximal extremity often abrades or splinters upon hammer impact. Next to that, only a few small scars are present on the dorsal proximal edges of exp. 28/2 and 28/3. Some damage from anvil contact is observed on the dorsal ridge of exp. 28/1. On the tools of exp. 27, production scarring is more intense. It is visible on practically all dorsal edges in variable intensities and also on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 27/1 and the ventral medial edge of exp. 27/16. No gloss was observed (Table 4.6).

3.2.1.2 After hafting Limited macroscopic hafting scarring was observed on exp. 27/14 and 27/16, on the ventral medial and proximal edges respectively (Table 4.1). A faint hafting gloss is formed on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 28/2, 28/3 and 28/4, on the dorsal medial edge of exp. 28/4 and the ventral medial edge of exp. 28/3 (Table 4.2), but it is absent from the tools of exp. 27. 3.2.2

Microscopic analysis

3.2.2.1 Before hafting Polish formation as a result of production is extremely poor (Table 5.5). A few faint spots are sometimes visible on edges (Pl. 56) and ridges. They are most extensive on exp. 27/1, 27/14 and 27/16. On exp. 27/4, some polish resulted from the knapping fracture of the point. Retouch polish, restricted to faint spots, is present on a few ventral edges, in particular on exp. 28/1. Polish also formed as a result of anvil contact on some of the distal ridges. This was observed only outside the intended hafted area at the height of edge retouch. Production scarring can be more intense than polish formation. Next to the macroscopic scarring, some more scars are visible under magnification, on the ventral edges in the main (e.g., exp. 28/1, 28/3). Knapping striations were frequent on the butt from direct contact with the hammer (e.g., exp. 27/14, 28/1, 28/2, 28/3). On retouched tools, retouch striations are visible on the ventral edges, often in combination with striations from anvil contact on the dorsal ridges (e.g., exp. 27/14, 27/16, 28/1, 28/3). In all these cases, anvil traces are located in the distal tool portion, outside the intended hafted area. The retouch striations are limited and always associated with a concavity from the dorsal retouch scar (Pl. 57-58). No rounding or bright spots were observed on any of the tools. Traces are thus very limited on freshly produced tools, and they are always associated with a technological feature (e.g., original platform, retouch). On tools fabricated out of coarse-grained flint (e.g., exp. 28/2), hardly anything is visible. 3.2.2.2 After hafting Hafting polish was observed on several tools (Fig. 3.9), be it often in a very poor stage of development (Tables 6.27 and 6.28). This proves that polish may be produced during the hafting process itself, although it remains poorly developed. The amount and development stage of the polish proves to depend on the hafting arrangement and the amount of contact between stone tool and haft. In the case of a juxtaposed arrangement (exp. 28/1), insufficient friction occurred and no polish formed. Only on exp. 27/16 were a few faint spots observed on the ventral butt and medial surface. Hafting in a male split arrangement (wood and antler) resulted in polish formation, except on exp. 27/4 which was too thin to have a sufficiently close contact with the haft. On exp. 28/2 (wooden haft), there was light hafting polish on the dorsal proximal edges and medial surface. On exp. 28/4 (antler haft), somewhat more polish was visible on

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Exp. 27/1 Exp. 27/4 Exp. 27/14 Exp. 27/16 Exp. 28/1 Exp. 28/2 Exp. 28/3 Exp. 28/4

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

41

clear limit

clear differ

both 0 both ventral 0 dorsal dorsal ventral

both 0 both ventral 0 dorsal both both

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Exp. 27/1 Exp. 27/4 Exp. 27/14 Exp. 27/16 Exp. 28/1 Exp. 28/2 Exp. 28/3 Exp. 28/4

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 3.9. Hafting polish formation during hafting process (intensity on a scale of 1-4; 8: not relevant; 9: analysis is impossible)

clear limit

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 1 0 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 2 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

3 0 0 1 0 1 2 1

9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

both 0 0 ventral dorsal ventral both both

clear differ both 0 dorsal both dorsal both both both

Figure 3.10. Hafting scarring formation during hafting process (intensity on a scale of 1-4; 8: not relevant; 9: analysis is impossible)

the dorsal proximal ridge, the ventral butt, bulb, proximal edge, and medial surface. The polished zones correspond to the areas of most intense contact when a tool is mounted in the split. The trace pattern also corresponds to exp. 27/14, even though this tool was not completely inserted. Apparently, pressing a tool into a split causes sufficient friction. Hafting in a male antler haft (exp. 27/1 and 28/3) led to the most intense polish formation, which was already assumed, given the scratching sounds heard during hafting. It proves that the contact between stone tool and haft was close, which is necessary for a secure mounting. A tool which is narrower than the hole in the haft is difficult to fix. For the juxtaposed arrangements, scarring is, not surprisingly, most extensive on the unretouched tool, exp. 27/16 (Fig. 3.10). Retouch protects the edges, and on exp. 28/1 only a few small scalar and trapezoidal scars formed on the dorsal medial right edge, at the exact haft limit where much pressure is concentrated. On the other tools scarring is more extensive, in particular on exp. 27/1, 28/3 and 28/4. To deal with the male hafted tools first, scarring is very intense on exp. 27/1: it is present on all edges except the ventral medial left edge. Probably all contact was concentrated on the right side of the tool. Scalar scars in a runtogether pattern with distinct patches are dominant, but they vary in size. Exp. 28/3 shows a well-developed scarring pattern: scars are visible on all edges (the only exception is the dorsal medial right edge) and are scalar and trap-

ezoidal, often with abrupt terminations, most frequently in run-together patterns. On male split hafted tools, scarring is more restricted. On exp. 28/2, some scars were present on the medial left edge, and on the dorsal proximal edges. These are mainly scalar scars next to some sliced scars with bent initiations on the proximal right edge. Overall scarring remains limited (one scar per tool part, except on the dorsal proximal right edge) and no real distribution pattern can be identified. On exp. 28/4, scars are often too small to be clearly visible (e.g., nibbling scars). They occur on most of the edges: the ventral right edge, the dorsal medial right edge and proximal edges. Small scalar scars are again dominant, and a run-together pattern, often in distinct patches, can be distinguished. Exp. 27/4 and 27/14 should be omitted here, since the former was too thin for the split and the latter was not inserted fully and no bindings were used to fix the tool. The evidence clearly demonstrates that scarring is formed during the hafting process alone and that its extent and intensity vary between hafting arrangements. Nevertheless, scarring is more restricted than in used hafted tools. The hafting process and hafted use thus contribute unequally to scar formation. Bright spots were formed only on the bulb of exp. 28/1 (Pl. 59), the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 27/16 (Pl. 60), and the ventral proximal and medial edges of exp. 28/3. The small isolated wood polish spot on exp. 28/1 may be

42

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

somewhat surprising considering the lack of polish formation. Probably a very short amount of friction occurred during hafting and a small spot could be formed due to the prominent nature of the bulb. The bright spots on exp. 27/16 and exp. 28/3 are different in nature. In both cases they are associated with scarring and they can be attributed to friction with flint particles which detached within the haft (Pl. 61). The scarring that was heard when inserting exp. 28/3 was clearly sufficient for bright spots to form. A few short striations were formed on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 28/4. They are orientated parallel to the tool’s axe and can be attributed to a short amount of friction with the antler haft upon insertion or de-hafting. No rounding was formed during hafting. 3.2.3 Conclusion While hafting wear is formed during the hafting process itself, the main moment of trace formation is clearly during hafted use.

3.3

CAN HAFTING WEAR BE DISTINGUISHED FROM WEAR PRODUCED BY EXTERNAL FACTORS?

In the past, technological (i.e., production and retouch) wear in particular was assumed to cause potential confusion with hafting traces, but aside from production (including shaping and maintenance, i.e., retouching) there are also other causes to be considered: friction during transport (i.e., prehistoric), sheath wear, trampling, post-depositional processes, and (post-) excavation friction (i.e., friction with metal tools during excavation and flint-on-flint friction during subsequent transport and storage). All these causes are referred to as “external” and may potentially result in the same types of traces, i.e., polish, rounding/smoothing, scarring, striations and bright spots. Experiments were undertaken for most of these causes except post-depositional processes, given the problematic nature of such experiments (see infra). Only some of the available experimental pieces are included in tables 4, 5 and 6, because the traces were very similar and consistent in their formation. Rather extensive research was undertaken during the early years of microwear research on the effect of trampling, post-depositional processes, and chemical actions on use-wear polishes and on the reliability of use-wear interpretations (e.g., Mansur-Franchomme 1986, Plisson and Mauger 1988). Here, the distinctiveness of prehensile wear is focussed on and in order to facilitate the comparison a few basic characteristics of hafting traces, as identified up to now, are listed: – a clear-cut boundary between a hafted and used tool portion – an organised trace distribution – the domination of polish and scarring, the variable presence of bright spots and striations and infrequent rounding – the particular pattern and intensity of hafting traces,

influenced by a number of variables, including tool use and hafting arrangement 3.3.1 Production Production as a possible cause of wear formation refers to knapping, retouching, and anvil contact. No traces could be attributed to the leather pad on which stone artefacts may be placed during retouching. Even though small flint particles may become embedded in the leather after prolonged use and cause friction striations during subsequent knapping and retouching (Plisson 1985a), no such wear was observed. Consequently, leather pads were not further included in the analysis. Production wear has been integrated in past investigations to some degree (Odell 1977; Keeley 1980) and it could be established that a lack of knowledge concerning technological traces caused (possible) misinterpretations of certain tools (Nance 1971; Keeley 1974b; Unrath et al. 1986). Several studies included data on the traces resulting from one or another production method (Semenov 1964; Newcomer 1976; Odell 1977; Brink 1978a; Keeley 1980; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Del Bene 1980a; Clark 1984; Healan and Kerley 1984; Mansur-Franchomme 1986). Described traces consist of scratches and striations, crushing, spontaneous retouch (Newcomer 1976), light polish, light abrasion, etc. The distinction between intentional retouch and scarring is not always easy and not everybody is equally convinced that it is possible to draw anyway (Keeley 1980). Apart from the large scar, retouching generally produces smaller scars at the scar’s initiation. These small scars complicate the distinction. Whether or not they cut through the borders of the larger retouch scar is an important criterion: small retouch scars generally do not, except perhaps when the retouched edge is abraded with the hammer. Distinctions can also be based on retouch striations which are generally orientated perpendicularly or slightly obliquely to the edge. Most patches of production-related bright polish spots also have typical locations. Aside from those, traces, such as abrasion, rubbing or grinding of the platform edge, etc., may form during the intentional preparation of the nodule. Details concerning the production experiments can be found in Table 1.3. The analytical results were not always recorded in equal detail due to the consistent nature of the traces (Tables 4-6). The main tendencies are described. 3.3.1.1 Macroscopic analysis At first sight, macroscopic scarring produced during knapping may seem to be randomly distributed, but this is not the case. There is generally no scarring on the ventral face (of unretouched artefacts), and when scarring occurs it is usually the result of an irregularity in the flint itself (e.g., exp. 17/8) (Table 4.1). On retouched artefacts occasional small scars can occur along the ventral edges. The most important production-related scarring is located on dorsal distal edges and on the dorsal point. The latter easily fractures during knapping, which may be associated with scarring. On distal edges, scarring consists mainly of a few widely dispersed scars, often better described as

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

small notches. The individual scars are rather deep. Similar widely dispersed scars may occur on the dorsal medial and proximal edges, in gradually reducing amounts. The concentration of scars on the dorsal face is in keeping with the force exerted during knapping: when a blank flips over on to its side upon detachment, pressure is exerted on the ventral edges, resulting in scarring on the dorsal ones. Dorsal ridge damage occurs, but usually as a consequence of knapping preparation or anvil contact in the case of retouched pieces; this results in crushed ridges at the height of edge retouch. Overall, scars are most commonly situated on prominent edges, mainly in the distal zone. Apart from scars described as “spontaneous retouch” (Newcomer 1976), which are generally continuously distributed, most scars are isolated. Macroscopic gloss is rare. It occurs as a result of hammer or anvil contact and is largely confined to retouched pieces. Striations resulting from hammer impact during retouching may occasionally be clearly visible (e.g., exp. 17/18). Hammer traces from retouching occur on the ventral face (unless retouch is inverse). Anvil contact during retouching causes gloss formation on ridges and the adjacent surface (e.g., exp. 17/19), as the dorsal face is generally positioned on the anvil. Only in the case of inverse retouch or retouch by counter-pressure may the ventral face be in contact with the anvil. A last possible cause of gloss formation is a short period of friction with the nodule upon detachment. Such gloss is, however, extremely rare (e.g., exp. 17/17). Consequently, macroscopic traces result from production but they are consistent in formation. Scarring is generally limited and concentrated in the distal part, an area of reduced importance with regard to hafting (assuming proximal hafting), and on the butt. The latter traces are easily interpretable as being caused by production. Retouch traces always occur in association with a retouched edge, for instance on the ventral face of a retouched edge or on the dorsal ridge at the height of edge retouch (i.e., anvil traces). It therefore seems unlikely that macroscopic production wear would be mistaken for hafting wear. 3.3.1.2 Microscopic analysis Polish Knapping polish is generally restricted to a few light spots, most often in the ventral proximal zone (e.g., exp. 17/1). Such spots result from the short period of friction with the core when the blank detaches. This friction is most intense in the bulbar area and on the ventral butt, particularly on the ventral side of the impact point (i.e., initiation point of the bulb). There, polish may form in varying degrees of development. Most often, it is only poorly developed (Pl. 62), but it may occasionally be quite intense, even almost bright spot-like (Pl. 63). For friction polish to be well developed, the impact point needs to be prominent. On the dorsal face, knapping traces are extremely rare and only retouch wear is generally encountered. On the butt, faint friction polish from the impact of the hammer can be expected (Pl. 64). Retouch polish is rare and always very light. It can for instance be observed on the termination of a retouch scar

43

(e.g., exp. 17/1) when the scar flake scratches the flint surface upon detachment. More polish is formed by the impact of the hammer during retouching. Direct retouch causes polish on ventral edges (Pl. 65-66), retouch by counterpressure may cause polish on retouch ridges and inverse retouch causes polish formation on dorsal edges. A retouch polish is always associated with retouched edges. The most dominant feature of all is the use of an anvil. Apart from polish, striations and scarring are also produced (see infra). Anvil contact is very destructive, and when traces are intense (Pl. 67), they largely obliterate other potential wear. Anvil traces are concentrated on ridges and the adjacent surface at the height of edge retouch. The limited retouch of the proximal edges of exp. 17/1, for instance, was sufficient to produce clearly visible anvil wear on the proximal ridge and adjacent surface. The morphology of anvil polish is determined by the nature of the anvil. Anvil polish and scarring are mainly concentrated on the ridge (Pl. 67-68), while striations are often present on both the ridge and the adjacent surface. The great impact of anvil use is illustrated by exp. 17/15, which was produced without an anvil and shows hardly any production-related wear. In the first part of the experimental collection, anvil wear is somewhat over-represented, given the habits of one of the knappers (i.e., L. Pirnay). A last feature is raw material impact. The microscopic image of flint differs according to the raw material used. If this variation in microscopic appearance is unknown, some flint surfaces may perhaps be interpreted as showing a very light – though uniform – polish. Therefore, it is always best to know the appearance of fresh flint surfaces of all the types included. The very black flint (e.g., Obourg, Somme) and the common grey flint, both fine (Pl. 69) and coarse (Pl. 70), do not pose any problems: nothing could be mistaken for light polish formation. Yellow flint (e.g., Grand Pressigny) shows shiny patches (Pl. 71), a non-problematic feature one should be aware of. Fresh black-brown flints (Pl. 72) may occasionally show a net-like pattern under magnification, which should not be mistaken for any possible form of polish formation. In all cases, the natural “polishing” is uniformly distributed over the whole flint surface, ruling out a possible functional origin. While raw material coarseness may influence the speed of polish formation, it does not really influence interpretations. Scarring Knapping scarring is generally restricted to a few occasional scars on the dorsal edges and an occasional fracture of the distal tip. In the case of pronounced knapping radiations, the ventral edges may sometimes appear damaged, while they are in fact only irregular due to these radiations. During retouching, small scars detach at the initiation of a retouch scar (see supra). Apart from those scars – which sometimes obliterate other wear – hardly any damage is produced during retouching. A tool can of course fracture, but such fractures are generally easily recognisable (see infra). Rarely is a small scar detached on the ventral edge itself (assuming direct retouch) (Pl. 73). However, a particular feature needs to be noted with regard to retouch scar-

44

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

ring on burins. During the analysis, specific scars were frequently noted a little below the burin spall, but well above the haft limit (e.g., exp. 22/40, 22/43, and 22/45). The scars have a sliced morphology with a curved initiation, they are moderate to large in size, and they occur in groups of about three scars. Similar scars are also linked with the use of bindings (see infra). Further experiments demonstrated that these scars are produced during the production of the burin spall by the pressure of the hand on the edge. This cause was therefore included as a separate entry in the tables (“52”, cf. annex I). The interpretation finds further confirmation in the location of these scars with reference to the burin spall. When the burin spall is located on the left edge (e.g., exp. 22/40), the prehension scars are present on the right edge. When burin spalls are located on both edges (e.g., exp. 22/43), the prehension scars also occur on both edges. The counter-pressure resulting from hammer impact thus causes the scars. Their formation is probably also influenced by the exact way in which the spall is detached (e.g., with or without anvil), but this factor was not further examined. Anvil use often results in ridge crushing, which can be quite intense (Pl. 74) and macroscopically visible (see supra). Bright spots No real bright spots form apart from an occasional bright spot-like polish spot on the initiation point of the bulb, visible on the ventral butt, or on the bulbar ridges (Pl. 75). Striations Striations are the most frequently produced technological wear. Knapping striations occur on the butt as a result of impact from the hammer (Pl. 76). Their morphology depends on the type of hammer used, for instance stone (Pl. 77) or antler (Pl. 78) (Rots 2010 - In press). Striations may also occur on the ventral bulb as a result of friction with the core when the blank detaches (Pl. 79). They always show a flint-on-flint morphology. Retouch striations are a result of hammer impact and, for direct retouch, striations can be observed on the ventral edge (Pl. 80). These are located within the concavity resulting from the scar’s detachment (Pl. 81). Their morphology again depends on the hammer used: for instance, a hard stone (Pl. 82), a soft stone (Pl. 83-84), or an antler hammer (Pl. 85). Stone hammers result in several parallel short striations – most intense for hard stone hammers – while antler hammers result in one main long striation (Pl. 86). Anvil striations can be abundant (Pl. 87). They occur on dorsal ridges and the adjacent surface at about the height of retouched edges (e.g., exp. 17/1, exp. 17/14). Their absence on the remaining portions of the ridge provides sound evidence of their cause. They are a result of friction with a stone anvil and show a stone-on-stone morphology. Rounding and smoothing No surface smoothing can be observed as a result of tool production, but intense anvil wear may be associated with some rounding of the ridge.

3.3.2 Transport The transporting of stone tools and other equipment in a bag in a way which is plausible for prehistoric conditions may potentially result in wear. Given the assumption that hafted tools are more likely to be transported between sites, given the higher investment in their production (Rots 2003 and references therein), it is important to examine whether wear results from this process. Some experimental data on this so-called “bag wear” are available (Odell and OdellVereecken 1980; Kamminga 1982; Plisson 1985c; Luedtke 1986; Rots 1996), and a general feature appears to be the random distribution of scarring along the edges. Scars are generally small and irregular, most often wider than long. A preliminary experiment was performed (Rots 1996) and involved the transport of stone tools, pieces of wood, antler and stone in a leather bag, hanging loose from a belt for a period ranging from 3 to 15 days. Intense scarring and polish formed and the polish morphology proved to be determined by the bag content: wood polish spots, next to stone, antler and limited leather polish were visible. Intense scarring largely destroyed potentially suitable edges and this mode of transport probably has little prehistoric relevance. Four modes of transport were tested experimentally (Table 1.4). In each case, a single person transported freshly knapped blades and tools: 1a. in a loose hanging leather bag 1b. in a loose hanging leather bag together with small pieces of schist and wood 2. in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers 3. rolled individually in a leather wrapping and subsequently placed into a loose hanging leather bag 4. rolled one after the other in a large piece of leather and subsequently placed in a small leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers All artefacts were transported for a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 204 days and the individuals moved around on a regular basis. The main distinctive wear traits are included. 3.3.2.1 Macroscopic analysis The intensity of macroscopic scarring and gloss strongly differs between the modes of transport. In the first situation (1a & 1b), even a short period of transport of a few days results in intense scarring all over the tool. This scarring is randomly distributed and varies in size. On some tools, damage is most intense on the dorsal face (e.g., exp. 11/1), on others it is bifacial (e.g., exp. 11/2, 11/3). Scars may occur in patches of continuous relatively regular scars (e.g., exp. 11/1), but overall scars are very irregular in morphology and size (e.g., exp. 11/2, 11/5, 11/20). Also, the scar distribution is irregular and sometimes even almost continuous over all edges (e.g., exp. 11/3). Distal scarring or even fractures are frequent (e.g., exp. 11/2). This scarring pattern could definitely not be mistaken for one induced by hafting. Many tools show macroscopic scratches (striations) all over their surface (e.g., exp. 11/20) with varied orientation and positioning. A macroscopically visible gloss was produced on all tools, with no restriction to a particular tool part or edge. In some regions, this gloss is

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

very intense (e.g., the dorsal ridges of exp. 11/5, Pl. 88). Transport largely destroyed all potentially functional edges. Scarring resulting from the second transport scenario is more limited in comparison, but it remains abundant. It is again irregular and randomly distributed. On a few artefacts, patches of scarring occur which could perhaps be interpreted as marking a potential haft limit. However, the surrounding traces are a-typical of hafting: very irregular and randomly distributed scars without restriction to a specific tool portion, and a clear gloss all over the tool. In the third and fourth situations, hardly any scarring occurs. Edges remain sharp and efficient. The individual wrapping of artefacts proves very suitable for transport, it is supported ethnographically (Kamminga 1982), and it seems very plausible for prehistoric conditions. No scars could be interpreted as marking a potential haft limit. Dispersed light gloss spots were occasionally observed, but again, these have a random distribution. The following criteria permit a distinction between macroscopic transport and hafting traces: – intense irregular scarring in a random distribution all over the tool – a general light gloss all over the tool – no relationship between the wear and a potentially functional edge – no relationship between the wear and tool morphology 3.3.2.2 Microscopic analysis Although a macroscopic analysis proves to be sufficient to distinguish transport traces, some microscopic trace characteristics are nevertheless included to strengthen the argument. Again, traces prove to be randomly distributed all over the tool and their number and intensity depend on the particular transport situation. Microscopic traces were observed on nearly all transported tools, in particular for the first mode of transport. The polish characteristics depend on the contents of the bag: if small schist tablets are present, a schist polish forms all over the tools (Pl. 89), if only flints are present, a flint-on-flint polish forms. In the first transport situation, traces are randomly distributed all over the tool without a preference for a particular tool part, and no boundaries can be identified. One kind of polish dominates and its morphology depends on the bag content: the most abrasive material dominates the polish formation process. Contact with the leather bag causes only limited polish formation. Transport polish is very intrusive (Pl. 90): it is primarily concentrated on all prominent points, but it quickly intrudes far into the surface, up to the formation of general polish. Transport polish is always associated with other trace types: rounding (Pl. 90; Pl. 91), bright spots (Pl. 91), scarring (Pl. 92), and striations. Bright spots are generally small, flat, smooth and very much linked together (Pl. 93). Scarring is extremely abundant and it is clear that the detached scars are (at least partially) responsible for the bright spot formation. In the other transport scenarios, traces are less developed and/or less extensive. In the second scenario, polish can still reach a well-developed stage (Pl. 94), but it takes more

45

time (about 98 days). Again, there are only minor differences between the development stage of the polish on the ridges (Pl. 95), edges, and surface. Only the tool morphology makes it appear to be better developed on the former two. A general abrasion polish forms like a film which is found all over the tool. Considerable rounding may be associated with the polish, next to bright spots (Pl. 96). In the last two cases, few traces are produced. After 79 days, some minor polish had formed on the dorsal ridges of the third series of tools. This polish is poorly developed and is similar to what would be expected of knapping friction polish. Only after 120 days had a clear but still limited polish formed (Pl. 97). Bright spots were produced in only one case, due to the position of the string on a protruding part of the tool’s edge. This produced more extensive damage and pressure, leading to bright spot formation on the edge (Pl. 98). These bright spots remain rare and small. In general, abrasion polishes are more frequent on transported tools than bright spots: the friction is rarely sufficiently intense to allow bright spot formation (Rots 2002b) while it may lead to an all-round abrasion polish. Only the first scenario is an exception: tools are thrown against each other and cause bright spots. Such bright spots are easily distinguishable thanks to their association with abrasion polish and their all-round random distribution. 3.3.3 Sheath wear Sheath wear may form on the working portion of a stone tool due to frequent insertion into and extraction from a sheath; it mainly consists of striations (Plisson and Beugnier 2007). Given that this wear primarily affects use-wear traces, this type of wear was not included in the experimental programme. 3.3.4 Trampling Trampling refers to the treading of humans and livestock on (stone) remains during or after the site’s occupation, and this may potentially result in wear formation. Abundant experimental data on trampling wear are available (Tringham et al. 1974; Flenniken and Haggarty 1979; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Kamminga 1982; Pryor 1988; Van Gijn 1990; Shea and Klenck 1993; McBrearty et al. 1998). Scarring appears to be the most important trace formed. Trampling scarring proves to be distinguishable from use scarring and it is characterised by random distribution, on the face opposite the face which is trampled (Tringham et al. 1974; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). Scars are randomly oriented and sized, and they generally show an elongated morphology. Pryor (1988) challenged the idea that trampling scarring should occur on one face only, since artefacts turn round easily and the pressure is mainly exerted by one artefact on another. He considered that edge angle, flake size, soil and the face which is scarred influenced scarring intensity. McBrearty et al. (1998) also noticed scarring, breakage, and other macroscopic mechanical damage. They noted the influence of three variables, raw material, artefact density and the substrate. Scarring was most intense on impenetrable substrates. While some experimenters did not observe polish

46

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

formation (Flenniken and Haggarty 1979), others observed an undifferentiated sheen which should not obscure most use polishes, apart from perhaps meat, fresh hide and the initial stages of wood polish (Van Gijn 1990). Shea and Klenck (1993) also confirm that polish is visible on a low power level, next to scarring and striations. They attribute the sometimes numerous and randomly orientated striations to grit particles embedded in the leather footwear worn during trampling. They argue that if trampling wear is mistaken for use-wear, it is most likely to be mistaken for wear from cutting either medium or hard materials, such as wood, bone, hide, or soaked antler. According to them, the severity of trampling damage may partially depend on the density of stone artefacts and the amount of moisture in the trampled substrate. Consequently, trampling wear seems to be sufficiently specific to avoid interpretative errors, especially when a high power analysis is included (Shea and Klenck 1993). Given the extensive experimentation and data published on the topic, no further experiments were undertaken. The most important characteristics of trampling wear are its varied location and its morphology (e.g., scarring), which is in sharp contrast to the organised pattern of hafting traces. 3.3.5 Post-depositional processes Post-depositional processes, such as soil compaction, soil creep, water transport, wind erosion, fauna- and floraturbation etc., may alter or damage tools. This has been described as mechanical alteration (Bordes 1950; Schutt 1979; Levi-Sala 1986a; 1986b; Plisson and Mauger 1988; Levi-Sala 1993). Post-depositional processes also include the impact of soil acidity and chemicals on the artefact. This has been referred to as chemical alteration (Stapert 1976; Fojud and Kobusiewicz 1982; Baesemann 1986; Levi-Sala 1986a; 1986b; Plisson and Mauger 1988; Levi-Sala 1993). Such processes are difficult to reproduce experimentally and the most important constraint is time. Therefore, published data are used. The potential impact of post-depositional processes was noted early (Warren 1923; Schmalz 1960) and enjoyed a lot of attention in microwear research. This research was aimed at understanding the exact impact of these processes on use-wear traces and their interpretation (Stapert 1976; Schutt 1979; Texier 1981; Fojud and Kobusiewicz 1982; Baesemann 1986; Plisson 1986; Levi-Sala 1986a; 1986b; Plisson and Mauger 1988; Kaminska et al. 1993; Levi-Sala 1993; 1996). On archaeological tools, patination and gloss may form as a result of wind and water abrasion (Semenov 1964), while rounded ridges and edges are attributed to solution during long burial (Stapert 1976). The general advice is to analyse collections in fresh condition, best derived from a primary context (Keeley 1980). Unfortunately, tools may seem by the naked eye to be well-preserved while showing alterations under magnification (Rots 1996). Reproducing these processes in an experimental context is not straightforward. Artificial constructs were often made in order to approximate what tools potentially experience in the soil (Tringham et al. 1974). The resulting scars show random

distribution along the entire flake perimeter, and random orientation, size and shape. The main criteria that are believed to allow one to draw a distinction with use-wear traces are: (1) random patterning all over the artefact without a significant concentration, (2) irregularly spaced scars all over the edges, and (3) multidirectional striations, polish, edge rounding, or crushing which is not correlated with a particular edge (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). Bright spots are often linked with post-depositional alterations (Rots 2002b). They can be distinguished from hafting-induced ones based on their random distribution all over the tool, their frequent association with a macroscopically visible patination or light alteration (sheen), and the absence of a true association with potential scarring. The characteristics of post-depositional wear share with transport wear random distribution and overall presence, in contrast to hafting wear. 3.3.6 (Post-)excavation processes During and after excavation, several processes may result in additional wear on flint tools. A few experimental studies were performed (Gero 1978; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Plisson 1985a), which allowed one to determine that post-excavational wear shares with most other forms of external wear random distribution over the whole artefact. Excavation equipment can lead to the production of one or more rows of contiguous, unifacial scars which are roughly equal in size and shape, V-shaped notches, and metallic marks (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). Sieving may cause clearly distinguishable scarring and a metal polish all over the tool. Cleaning, rubbing or brushing off sediments may cause a mechanical “soil sheen”, even under running water. Chemical cleaning can result in sheen or patination when incorrect products or concentrations are used, or when artefacts are not washed off in water afterwards (see chapter 2). Careless treatment during transport (e.g., in bags, boxes) and analysis can result in friction wear (e.g., when bags of flint are roughly emptied on a table, refitting), including extensive edge damage which partially or completely removes polish, friction gloss, linear streaks of polish, and/or a light rounding of edges and ridges. The repeated handling of artefacts is observed to produce a light meat polish (Plisson 1985a; Unrath et al. 1986), and some markings may be difficult to remove. Two processes were considered for the experiments: metal wear and friction during transport, storage and analysis. Many experimental tools were included (i.e., exp. 18 and 21; Table 1.4), but only the general trace characteristics are referred to here. The wear pattern proved to be essentially the same as for tool transport: random distribution and varying appearance. Metal traces may result from contact with excavation equipment, sliding callipers, protractors, etc., including polish, striations and scarring. This wear is very distinctive and unlikely to cause confusion. For wear produced by tool transport, the same criteria are applicable as for the prehistoric modes of transport tested above. It is clear that one should avoid transporting artefacts in large bags, as that is very destructive for a stone tool’s edges. Individual bags are ideal, but require substantial invest-

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

ment. Friction wear is generally sufficiently distinctive not to be confused with functional wear, but it causes unnecessary background noise. Stone-on-stone contact also dominates the wear that may be caused by certain storage procedures (e.g., storage in large boxes) and refitting. All processes described result in recognisable wear with an unorganised random pattern permitting distinction from hafting traces. Some confusion is however not ruled out when traces occur in low quantities. Therefore, it is best to avoid this kind of friction if one does not want to reduce the interpretative potential and reliability of microscopic analysis. 3.3.7 Intentional flint-on-flint rubbing An additional friction experiment was undertaken to permit the better understanding of the formation process of bright spots. Dry and wet intentional rubbing of stones was examined as a means to estimate the impact of intense and prolonged friction between stone tools (e.g., in a bag). In dry conditions, bright spots were reproduced in varying degrees of development, although other analysts considered water to be a necessity for bright spot production (LeviSala 1986a). The first stage, after about 2 minutes, is rough and dull (Pl. 99), and with increased rubbing time (about 5 minutes), it becomes smoother and brighter (Pl. 100). The bright spots are not well linked up yet; they are best developed on the most prominent points of the microtopography. After about 10 minutes, the bright spots are nicely linked up (Pl. 101-102) and proved to be visible macroscopically. In all cases, an edge was rubbed with considerable pressure against a surface. Reproducing similar bright spots by rubbing two flint surfaces against each other proved very difficult. The resulting bright spots differ from hafting bright spots. Parallel grooves are always present due to the intentional two-directional rubbing motion. The bright spots are not isolated in nature and they are characterised by better developed (smoother and brighter) zones on the higher points of the microtopography and less developed (rougher and duller) zones on the lower points of the microtopography. After all, contact is made with a larger surface but with a low pressure during rubbing, while in the case of hafting, a flint particle moves back and forth in a small area within a haft under high pressure. Depending on the intensity of the use motion, smaller or larger parts of the surface are affected. Bright spots could not be reproduced with wet rubbing; only an abrasion polish formed. Its general distribution over the microtopography is similar, but the abrasion polish is not bright and smooth as in the case of dry rubbing (about 2 minutes, Pl. 103). Numerous grooves (parallel, linked to motion) are present, as is typical for a mechanical formation process. 3.3.8 Conclusion The experimental evidence presented shows that all external factors examined lead to the formation of traces which are easy to distinguish from prehensile wear. Production wear is always associated with a specific technological

47

feature (knapping traces with the butt, retouch and anvil traces with retouched edges, etc.). All production wear – apart from occasional intense anvil wear – is very limited in nature and shows a distinct, most often stone-on-stone, morphology. Striations differ in frequency; they form the most characteristic feature of production wear. While production traces have a certain degree of organisation, all other processes – transport, trampling, etc. – lead to traces which are randomly distributed over the whole tool, in sharp contrast to hafting traces which are limited to a welldefined tool part. While external factors may lead to quite substantial traces, no confusion is to be expected and hafting traces prove to have distinctive characteristics.

3.4

CAN HAFTING WEAR BE DISTINGUISHED FROM USE-WEAR?

Use-wear enjoyed a lot of attention in functional research and formed the object of several systematic investigations which resulted in extensive descriptions (Semenov 1964; Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985). Here, attention is devoted only to the characteristics which allow a distinction to be drawn between use-wear and hafting traces. For use-wear traces in general, polish and scarring are the most distinctive trace types, while striations and rounding are often associated. Bright spots are rare. Use polish is distinctive thanks to its clear impact on the edge (Pl. 104-105), and the location of the best-developed zones on the outer edge from where the polish gradually intrudes into the inner surface (Pl. 106-107). It further shows a distinct directional aspect (Pl. 106) and a close association with other trace attributes, such as rounding (Pl. 108-110), striations, scarring and occasionally bright spots (Pl. 111). The last occur only when a flint particle is stuck in the material worked due to which a short amount of friction with the working edge can occur, or when abrasive particles are added to the material being worked (e.g., ochre and hide). Use bright spots are thus always integrated within use polish. The material being worked and the use motion determine the variation in use-wear characteristics (Tringham et al. 1974; Odell 1977; Keeley 1980; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). Lastly, use-wear is always limited to the used edge only. The presence of retouch may hamper a straightforward identification of both use (Odell 1977; Keeley 1980) and hafting scarring. Intentional retouch is supposed to be larger, more invasive, and more regularly placed; crushing is present at the point of impact, while the scar ridges remain undamaged (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). Use scarring is smaller, less regularly spaced, and concentrated on projecting parts; on a retouched edge it nicks, crushes, and/or abrades those parts of the larger scars between impact and pressure points (for longitudinal and transverse motions) (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). In comparison to hafting scarring, use scarring is more continuous and regular in nature. Based on these criteria, use-wear traces are easily distinguished from hafting traces. Why then were hafting traces

48

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

mistakenly interpreted as use-wear traces in the past (i.e., in blind tests, Unrath et al. 1986)? The answer is simple: one cannot recognise what one does not know. The lack of an experimental reference for identifying and interpreting hafting traces left analysts with mere assumptions instead of true knowledge regarding the appearance and variability of hafting traces. Use was considered to be the most likely (or only) cause for trace formation and hafting was suggested as an alternative only when a use cause appeared improbable.

3.5

Exp. 19/3B, 5B and 25/2 and 25/3 were used with a wrapping. The other tools were hafted in a few different arrangements (Table 1.1), including a juxtaposed wooden haft (Exp. 19/1A and 5A), a juxtaposed bone haft (Exp. 19/3A), a male split antler haft (Exp. 25/4), and a male antler haft (Exp. 25/5). All tools from exp. 19 were used for approximately one hour, those from exp. 25 for approximately half an hour. Fresh bone, dry and soaked antler were worked. The hafted examples are dealt with first and they are then compared with their hand-held counterparts. 3.5.1 Macroscopic analysis Distinctive macroscopic prehensile damage is present on most hafted tools and on four of the hand-held tools, in particular on the dorsal proximal edges (Fig. 3.11). The limited prehension scarring consists in the main of scalar and sliced scars and no clear-cut boundary can be identified. The scarring on hafted s.s. tools (i.e., true handle) is remarkably more intense. Wrapped tools take an intermediate position: exp. 25/2 shows only light scarring on the ventral butt and ventral medial edge, and exp. 25/3 only on the dorsal proximal edge and ventral medial edge. This scarring allows the determination of a boundary on the ventral face, but not in a very clear way. Scarring can be very intense on tools attached to a handle, depending on the hafting arrangement used, and a haft limit can be determined on most tools. On exp. 19/3A and 5A, distinctive scarring formed on the dorsal proximal and medial edges. It consisted mainly of individual moderate to large feather-terminating scalar scars, disturbing an evenly sized retouch pattern. On exp. 25/4 and 25/5, scarring could be observed on the dorsal proximal and medial edges, and on the ventral proximal edges. Scarring is particularly intense on exp. 25/5. The only possible explanation is that this is a result of the hafting arrangement used: in a male direct hafting much more pressure is exerted on the edges than in other arrangements.

CAN HAFTING WEAR BE DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER PREHENSILE WEAR?

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Hafted

DMridge

Wrapped

DPedge

Hand-held

Exp. 19/1B Exp. 19/1C Exp. 19/3C Exp. 19/5C Exp. 25/1 Exp. 19/3B Exp. 19/5B Exp. 25/2 Exp. 25/3 Exp. 19/1A Exp. 19/3A Exp. 19/5A Exp. 25/4 Exp. 25/5

DPridge

Prehensile mode Exp. ID

DPbutt

“Prehensile wear” is a general term which includes both hafting and prehension wear (i.e., from hand-held use). Hafting wear includes both the use of a haft and the use of some kind of wrapping. The aim here is to pinpoint how prehension traces can be distinguished from hafting traces, a crucial topic in this research. The most rewarding experiment for differentiating between different forms of prehensile wear is one in which all variables but the prehensile mode are kept constant (cf. exp. 19 and 25). The hafting category is divided in two groups: wrapped tools and hafted tools sensu strictu (i.e., with a handle). Each tool set therefore includes a minimum of three tools: one handheld, one wrapped and one hafted s.s. Experimental conditions within a tool set are kept as constant as possible. Most tools were used for approximately one hour for grooving hard animal matter (Tables 1.1, 1.2; annex II), and only a few variables are taken into account (e.g., tool use, hafting arrangement). Trace patterns are described in detail. Fourteen tools are included: exp. 19/1A, B and C, exp. 19/3A, B and C, exp. 19/5A, B and C, exp. 25/1-5. Exp. 19/1B and C, 19/3C, 5C and 25/1 were used in the hand.

clear limit

202 0 201 211 202 201 203 201 203 211 202 202 202 201

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0

502 0 501 211 502 401 222 0 401 0 403 401 401 402

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 501 211 0 0 0 0 0 0 403 401 401 403

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

201 8 201 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 201 0 201 0

501 0 501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 401 401

0 501 501 0 0 0 0 401 401 0 0 0 0 402

0 8 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ventral ventral 0 dorsal both dorsal both

Figure 3.11. Scarring per prehensile mode (first 2 digits refer to trace cause, cf. annex I; last digit to intensity on scale of 1-4; cf. chapter 2)

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

Gloss formation was observed on several tools, hafted s.s. tools mainly. On exp. 25/4 and 5 gloss can be observed on the dorsal proximal ridge and edge, and on the bulb. In addition, exp. 25/4 shows gloss on the ventral proximal surface and exp. 25/5 on the ventral proximal edge. A determination of the haft limit is not possible based on the gloss distribution as gloss is absent from the medial zone. A very faint general gloss can be observed on the hand-held tools exp. 19/1B and 19/1C. 3.5.2

49

3.1). Only one bright spot, attributable to wood friction, can be observed on the ventral proximal surface (Pl. 112). On the dorsal face, most of the left tool part is covered with cortex. The leather binding contact did not result in welldeveloped polish (Pl. 113-114). Some striations are present, but these are due to anvil contact during retouching. Poor to moderate scarring is present on the medial right and proximal left edges, and on the butt. In spite of poor hafting traces, it is possible confidently to identify this tool as used while hafted. The interpretation of the hafting arrangement requires a high power analysis with which a moderately certain interpretation can be obtained.

Microscopic analysis

3.5.2.1 Hafted tools s.s. Exp. 19/5A is entirely comparable to exp. 19/1A, apart from its use on dry antler instead of bone. Antler is harder to work than fresh bone, and this higher friction may result in better-developed traces (Fig. 3.13). The ventral contact with the wooden haft resulted in clear polish formation on the medial central surface (Pl. 115) and the bulb (Pl. 116). These traces are interpretable as due to wood. The remaining surface shows faint polishing only. The haft limit is marked by a set of small, smooth and flat bright polish spots on the central medial surface. No interpretable scarring is present. Also on the dorsal face (contact with leather bindings), polish is best developed in the medial zone, on the edges and ridges in the main and somewhat less on the surface. A light rounding is associated with the polish. Hafting polish formation on the dorsal butt was impossible due to a lack of contact with a hafting material. Bright spots are frequent and mainly present on the right dorsal tool part (Pl. 117118). Perhaps this is linked with the direction of the bindings from the ventral right edge to the dorsal right edge: potential detached scars would be more likely to cause friction (and thus bright spots) on the dorsal face (see infra). Even though both (dorsal) edges are retouched, the damage pattern confirms the microscopic evidence. In the tables, scars are included only when they could be distinguished from retouch with reasonable certainty. One scar on the dorsal medial right edge marks the haft limit and creates a small intrusion impossible to achieve by retouching.17 The damage on this dorsal right medial edge further includes large feather-terminating scalar scars (only some can be distinguished from retouch with reasonable certainty) with

Figure 3.12. Exp. 19/1A

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

P

0

401

402

401

402

402

402

401

402

401

401

401

Exp. 19/5A

BS

0

0

401

401

0

0

401

0

402

0

0

0

402

Exp. 19/5A

ER

0

401

0

0

401

401

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exp. 19/5A

ED

402

0

402

8

0

402

8

201

0

1

8

2

Exp. 19/5A

S

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

BUTT

DPridge

Exp. 19/5A

VMsurf

Presence

DPedge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

For the hafted tool exp. 19/1A (Fig. 3.12), the ventral (wooden) haft contact resulted in well-developed polish near the haft limit, on the ventral medial surface (Table 5.1). This polish is not very extensive, but permits an inference of the contact material with a moderate degree of certainty16. The edges do not show sufficiently developed polish, which is probably due to the fact that the edges did not protrude from the haft (Tables 2 and 3). In addition, a large part of the ventral left edge is covered with cortex (Table

clear limit

clear differ

402

9

both

both

9

both

both

0

9

0

dorsal

8

201

0

both

0

9

0

0

Figure 3.13. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 19/5A

16

Certainty levels: as if it were an archaeological tool (see chapter 2).

17

A similar kind of scar was regularly observed on archaeological tools (Rots 2002a).

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

small trapezoidal step-terminating ones at their initiation. A similar pattern is visible more proximally on the same edge. A special kind of scar which may be quite typical for hafting is a scalar, almost circular scar (i.e., balloon-type scar). On the dorsal left edge, only a few scars could be distinguished from retouch: small step-terminating scars at the initiation of larger ones in the medial zone, and larger scalar (almost balloon) feather-terminating scars in the proximal zone. The latter are situated in the zone which gradually protrudes towards the butt. Other scars could not be distinguished with reasonable certainty. The trace pattern described corresponds with those zones submitted to the highest pressure during use. In a juxtaposed arrangement, a grooving motion pulls the tool away from its haft or presses it against its haft: while the distal tool part is pulled away from the haft, the most proximal zone is pressed into the haft and vice versa. This lever effect results in two high-friction zones: round the haft limit and the most proximal part. The haft limit is visible under low power thanks to the faint use polishing which terminates sharply. The hafting traces are better developed on this tool than on the previous example. The slightly harder material worked resulted in better developed wear, which is confirmed by an increased number of bright spots (see infra).

Figure 3.14. Exp. 19/3A

the haft width. Damage is extensive on the dorsal edges. Sliced vertical removals are present on the medial left edge; they are unevenly sized and widely distributed along the edge. Scars are also widely distributed on the proximal left edge, but they show an evenly sized scalar morphology and feather and hinge terminations. Sliced vertical scars are again present on the medial right edge, but now in association with feather terminating ones and distributed in distinct patches. Sliced into scalar scars are also present (Pl. 120). A similar pattern is observed on the distal part of the proximal right edge (Pl. 121). The most proximal zone shows a different pattern, with run-together, unevenly sized feather and hinge terminating scalar scars in superposition. The latter are associated with a similar damage pattern on the ventral side (Pl. 122), except for minor dorsal crushing. In both cases, damage is undoubtedly due to the insertion of the tool into the bone haft during use, which explains its morphology, pattern and intensity. Also on the proximal left edge and the upper part of the proximal right edge such an association with a similar pattern on the ventral side is observed. This is due to the back and forth movement of the tool’s edges against the bindings during (two-directional) grooving. Lack of support from the haft increased the pressure on the edges, resulting in extensive damage on the dorsal edges. On top of that, the ventral side faced the material being worked and the higher pressure which could be exerted in a pulling motion towards the user increased the

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Exp. 19/3A Exp. 19/3A Exp. 19/3A Exp. 19/3A Exp. 19/3A

Presence

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Exp. 19/3A was also used on dry antler, but the tool was mounted with its dorsal face against a juxtaposed bone haft (Fig. 3.14). On the dorsal face, only a very limited portion of the lateral surface near the edges made contact with the haft and can potentially show bone haft wear (Fig. 3.15); the concavity in the longitudinally split extremity of the bone haft (in order to fabricate a juxtaposed haft with stopping ridge) prevented contact with the dorsal ridges. Some poorly developed (not interpretable) bone polish was observed near the right edge, next to a few smooth and flat bright spots (Pl. 119). The concavity in the bone haft also allowed antler particles to intrude and cause secondary use polish, which seems to have been the case based on the polish distribution on the dorsal central ridge: light polish spots are present in the distal part and these extend slightly beyond the haft limit. Intruding particles of the material worked potentially complicate the location of the haft limit. Fortunately, intentional retouch is absent and the scarring pattern is distinctive enough to allow the haft limit to be located, probably also because the edges protruded from the haft (Table 2 and 3.4). This confirms the effect of a greater stone tool width than

P BS ER ED S

201 0 0 403 0

0 0 0 0 0

401 0 0 403 0

0 0 0 8 0

0 0 0 0 0

401 401 0 403 0

0 0 0 8 0

0 0 0 201 0

402 401 0 201 0

401 0 0 401 0

401 0 0 8 0

401 0 0 1 0

401 0 0 8 0

Figure 3.15. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 19/3A

BUTT

50

clear limit

clear differ

322 0 0 201 201

0 0 0 both 0

both dorsal 0 both 0

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

pressure on the dorsal edges. This is evidenced by the fracturing of the haft, which would not have occurred if the tool had been hafted with its ventral face against the haft or the dorsal face had faced the material being worked. That could have resulted only in tool fracture or cut bindings.

that a male hafting arrangement leads to a better-developed wear pattern, for scarring in particular.

VMsurf

BUTT

401 0 0 402 211

401 0 0 8 0

401 401 0 402 0

0 0 0 8 0

402 0 0 0 202

both ventral 0 ventral 0

VMsurf

BUTT

0 0 0 8 0

VMedge

401 0 0 0 0

VMedge

401 0 0 221 221

VPsurf

DMsurf

0 0 0 8 0

VPsurf

DMedge

401 0 0 401 401

0 0 0 8 0

401 0 0 402 0

0 0 0 8 0

401 0 0 201 202

401 402 0 0 0

402 401 0 201 401

VPedge

DMridge

402 0 0 221 221

VPbulb

DPsurf

0 0 0 202 0

VPbulb

DPedge

P BS ER ED S

clear limit

VPbutt

DPridge

Exp. 25/4 Exp. 25/4 Exp. 25/4 Exp. 25/4 Exp. 25/4

Presence

DPbutt

Exp. 25/4 was mounted in a male split antler haft with bindings. Only the ventral face was in close contact with the haft, as the extremity of the limewood binding used for fixing the tool in the split was inserted between the medial dorsal face and the haft in order to create a stronger fixation. This influenced the hafting trace pattern (Fig. 3.16). Observations were hindered by the large amount of anvil wear, albeit that retouch is quite limited. The bestdeveloped hafting polishes are formed by contact with the haft and are located on the ventral left most proximal edge, the ventral bulb and the dorsal proximal ridge. In all these zones, polish is sufficiently developed to permit reliable interpretation. The polish caused by the bindings was interpretable only on the ventral most proximal right edge. The scarring pattern is interpretable with considerable certainty. The most abundant scarring is located on the central medial right edge and consists of sliced and scalar scars with bent initiations (proximal: Pl. 124). These scars are typical for the use of bindings (see infra). Exp. 25/4 is interpretable with a high level of certainty, which may imply

VPedge

Exp. 25/5 was mounted in a male antler haft, without any further fixation. There was some movement in the haft, but it did not hinder use. Polish is present all over the hafted tool part, but never very extensively (Fig. 3.17). It can be attributed with a high degree of certainty to antler. On the dorsal ridges, the polish intrudes far into the distal part and a limit is difficult to define. This is because the finger was placed on the stone tool distal of the haft (to provide additional support for the stone tool) where it caused some polish formation following friction with intervening particles of the material worked. Given that the tool was used on antler and hafted in an antler haft, it is difficult to distinguish between the two polishes. Consequently, a haft limit can only be identified based on the dorsal edges and surface, and the ventral face. The identified effect of a finger being placed directly above the haft emphasises that one should never rely solely on ridge polish to identify a haft limit. In contrast to the previous tools, there is only one kind of polish all over the tool. This may be an important trait when trying to differentiate between hafting arrangements. Scarring is very important, especially on the left edge. Apart from scalar (Pl. 53-55) and trapezoidal scars, crushing is frequent. This is the first tool on which such intense crushing is formed on most of the edges (in particular left). Retouch is not a factor, since only the dorsal medial right edge experienced fine retouching. Scars are not very typical in morphology, and they vary in size. Distinctive features are frequent abrupt terminations and a high amount of superposition. In most instances, larger scars have smaller ones or crushing at their initiation. Scars are on average deeper than on the previous examples. The scar type identified earlier as potentially characteristic of bindings is absent. Only a

The only interpretable hafting polish present on this tool is located on the ventral face and is due to friction with leather bindings. The best-developed polish is formed on the proximal surface, especially in the bulbar zone, and the medial surface. Also some bright spots were formed on the bulb (Pl. 123). Notwithstanding the equal hardness of the material being worked, hafting traces are less developed than on the previous tool due to the limited dorsal haft contact.

Exp. ID

51

clear differ both ventral 0 both ventral

Exp. 25/5 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 25/5

401 402 401 401 402 401 402 502 401 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 0 403 8 0 403 8 222 401 0 403 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 222 0 0 0

DPsurf

P BS ER ED S

Figure 3.17. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 25/5

VPbutt

DDridge

DMsurf

DMedge

DMridge

DPedge

Presence

DPbutt

Exp. ID

DPridge

Figure 3.16. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 25/4

clear limit both 0 0 both dorsal

clear differ both 0 0 both dorsal

52

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

slight tendency to a minor curve is present for some scars (Pl. 125), albeit insufficiently developed to justify its being recorded in the tables. Overall, scars show a run-together distribution, often with almost continuous zones, and they are bifacial on the left edge. If this intense scarring pattern proves to be consistent, tools hafted directly in a male haft may be very distinctive, based solely on the degree of scarring and the scarring pattern. This further suggests that it should not be particularly problematic to distinguish a male and a male split hafting. Hardly any striations are present. Only on the dorsal medial ridge are there a few striations that were attributed to contact with antler. They are orientated parallel to the tool’s axis. Bright spots are absent. The trace pattern on this tool is distinct from the other ones as far as trace extent and intensity are concerned. The hafting arrangement is undoubtedly responsible. To summarise, the similarities between the above trace patterns are: (1) the frequent presence of polish, scarring and bright spots in differing stages of development; (2) rare striations and rounding; (3) a clear limit in the trace pattern. In all but one case (exp. 19/1A), the low power analysis is sufficient for the certain identification of hafted tool use, indicating the characteristic nature of hafting scarring. For exp. 19/1A, only a moderate certainty level was reached, but the high power analysis left no doubt about its hafted use. On a high power level, polish proved distinctive, next to bright spots. In all but two cases (exp. 25/4 and 5), a high power analysis is necessary for providing detail concerning the hafting arrangement. A few variables were identified which may influence the hafting trace formation process: (1) hardness of the material worked, (2) haft type, (3) amount of haft contact, (4) stone tool width in relation to haft width, and (5) retouch. These will be dealt with in more detail in the following chapters. 3.5.2.2 Wrapped tools Hafted tools are compared with their wrapped equivalents, exp. 19/3B, exp. 19/5B, exp. 25/2 and exp. 25/3. On exp. 19/3B, polish due to dried leather bindings is extremely limited (Table 5.1). Small moderate to welldeveloped polish spots are observed only on the medial dorsal and ventral surfaces (Pl. 126) and somewhat less on the ridges, but overall they remain difficult to interpret. Hardly any polish is visible on the edges. A clear limit is nevertheless present thanks to small spots of use polish in the distal zone, which are clearly interrupted by the wrapping. The limited polish can be explained by the fact that leather – as soon as it dries and shrinks – forms a kind of second skin round the tool which prevents friction between the wrapping and the stone tool. If this had been an archaeological tool, it would have been impossible to be certain that the light edge polish was not caused by retouching. A few sliced vertical scars are present in distinct run-together patches. These scars correspond to those produced by bindings (see supra) and they were probably formed during wrapping. The presence of retouch on the dorsal left edge complicates other scarring interpretations.

Figure 3.18. Exp. 19/5B

Exp. 19/5B was wrapped with standard leather bindings (Fig. 3.18). These bindings allow some friction and traces are thus more extensive than in the previous example (Table 5.1). The bindings started with a larger (broader) piece covering the whole central medial left edge and adjacent surface and the most distal part of the proximal edge. This had an effect on the polish formation process. The leather polish on the ventral medial left edge is poorly developed and limited to some spots. Its development increases towards the butt, especially as soon as the larger piece of leather stops. The latter apparently reduced the amount of friction in comparison with thin bindings and the pressure exerted during fixation. The polish is rough, but not as dull as would be expected. Its slightly brighter nature is a result of the general flint brightness. The polish in the most proximal zone permits relatively certain interpretation. Polishes are best developed on dorsal ridges and edges, on which they can be interpreted with certainty as being due to leather. On the most proximal ventral edges a light rounding is observed. On the ventral proximal surface, there is one small bright spot, as well as some striations. Hardly any scarring was produced, but both dorsal edges were retouched, which interferes with their formation and observation. A clear limit was visible with low power only: it takes the form of light linear polishing corresponding with the position of the bindings; it is most apparent on the ventral proximal surface (proximal binding limit). Under high power, one can see that the few spots of bone-like polish terminate and that spots of hide-like polish start. In comparison to tools mounted in or on a handle, traces are far more restricted and less developed. Exp. 25/2 was wrapped in exactly the same way as exp. 19/5B. Again, the polish is best developed on the dorsal ridges and edges where it can be interpreted with a high degree of certainty (Fig. 3.19; proximal right edge: Pl. 127).

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Exp. 25/2 Exp. 25/2 Exp. 25/2 Exp. 25/2 Exp. 25/2

Presence

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

P BS ER ED S

401 0 0 202 0

401 0 0 0 0

401 401 0 403 0

0 0 0 8 0

402 0 0 221 221

401 0 0 401 0

0 0 0 8 401

401 0 0 401 0

401 0 0 0 401

401 0 0 403 0

0 0 0 8 0

401 0 0 403 0

0 0 0 8 0

202 0 0 201 202

clear limit both 0 0 both 0

53

clear differ both dorsal 0 both both

Figure 3.19. Microscopic traces on hafted part of exp. 25/2

In some zones (in particular the dorsal right edge), the influence of detached flint particles on the polish morphology can be noted. On the ventral face hardly any polish is visible, aside from a few spots. Scarring is intense on the ventral proximal right edge (confirming the influence of flint particles in the polish morphology on the dorsal right edge) and on the ventral left edge (medial in particular). Sliced scars with bent initiations are dominant, and occasionally a sliced scar proceeds into a scalar one. This again confirms the association of these scars with the use of bindings. In most cases, scars are small, uneven and occur in run-together patches. The position of the most abundant scarring zones corresponds to the most probable position of the hand during use. This would imply that the scars were formed during use as a result of the pressure exerted by the hand on the tool’s edge. A few striations were noted, in particular on the ventral bulb (Pl. 128) and on the dorsal medial right surface (Pl. 129). The striations are orientated perpendicularly and obliquely to the working axis respectively. They can be attributed to short period of friction with a detached flint particle during use. One bright spot is present just beneath a notch on the ventral proximal right edge. It is in clear association with intense scarring in that zone and it confirms that at least one kind of hafting bright spot is formed as a result of friction with a flint particle which detached within the haft (Rots 2002b). This tool can be identified on a low power level as having been used hafted thanks to the significant and very typical scarring pattern. There is remarkable similarity with the previous tool, apart from the scarring intensity (due to differing retouch intensity). Exp. 25/3 was wrapped with the aid of vegetal bindings (lime tree bark). Polish is moderate to well-developed on the ventral medial right edge, on the dorsal ridges and on the surfaces adjacent to these ridges (Table 5.1). This pattern may correspond to the position of the hand during use. The polish morphology differs from that produced by leather bindings, and it is smooth and bright. Most scarring is concentrated on the ventral medial right edge (Pl. 50-51). Again, the scars are rather small, uneven and run-together, often in clear patches. A remarkable feature is the absence of sliced scars, but the presence of many scalar (and trapezoidal) scars with wide curved or bent initiations (Pl. 51). Sliced scars which proceed into scalar

ones are present on the ventral proximal edge (Pl. 130). These “transitional” scars seem just as indicative of bindings as sliced scars; possibly they are even more indicative as sliced scars also occur in other situations: it is their pattern and their association that makes them typical for bindings. No reference to these transitional scars was found in the literature, and even if they could be produced by other causes their patterning is unique for hafting. The scarring largely occurs in patches and if these patches are compared with the original position of the bindings, the scar patch corresponds with the centre of the binding. No striations or bright spots were observed. The distinct scarring pattern permits the low power identification of this tool as used hafted. The exact nature of the bindings is more difficult to infer as the polish is poorly developed, but it allows leather bindings to be ruled out. To summarise, all wrapped tools proved to show a comparable trace pattern with differing degrees of intensity. Dried leather bindings result in the poorest traces, given the shrinkage that occurs upon drying. In all cases, a hafting limit can be defined, although it was based on the interruption of use-wear for the tool with dried leather bindings. The ability to identify a haft limit corresponds to that for the other hafted tools (s.s.). Traces are however more limited, in particular on tools with dried leather bindings. The identification of hafted tool use nevertheless remains possible based on the near absence of wear in a well-delimited zone. Wrapping use does not result in well-developed polishes apart from in a few zones which probably correspond to the position of the hand during use. Scarring intensity depends on the presence of retouch and the edge angle, but its pattern can be distinct (e.g., exp. 25/3). Overall, scars are typical for the use of bindings (especially their morphology and initiation), but they remain smaller than for tools attached to a handle. Other traces are rare. 3.5.2.3 Hand-held tools If the hafted tools are compared with the corresponding hand-held tools, exp. 19/1B, exp. 19/1C, exp. 19/3C, exp. 19/5C and exp. 25/1, a totally different trace pattern can be observed. On all five tools, traces on the non-active tool part are extensive and evenly spread all over the tool’s surface without limit. On exp. 19/1B, well-developed bone prehension polish is visible on the dorsal ridges, especially in the medial

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

501 0 0 501 0

VPsurf

502 0 0 0 0

VPedge

0 0 0 8 0

VPbulb

501 0 0 502 0

0 0 0 8 0

501 0 0 201 0

501 0 0 201 0

502 0 0 501 0

0 0 0 8 0

502 0 0 501 211

0 0 0 8 0

501 0 0 501 0

0 0 0 0 0

VPbulb

502 0 0 0 0

VPbutt

DMedge

501 0 0 501 0

clear limit

VPbutt

DMridge

P BS ER ED S

DMsurf

DPsurf

Exp. 19/1B Exp. 19/1B Exp. 19/1B Exp. 19/1B Exp. 19/1B

Presence

DPedge

Exp. ID

DPridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

54

clear differ 0 0 0 both both

clear limit

clear differ

0 0 0 0 0

both 0 both both both

Exp. 19/3C Exp. 19/3C Exp. 19/3C Exp. 19/3C Exp. 19/3C

0 0 0 8 0

BUTT

VDedge

VMsurf

VMedge

VPsurf

VPedge

DDedge

501 501 502 0 501 502 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 504 0 0 504 201 201 502 8 201 211 0 0 0 501 0 0

DPsurf

P BS ER ED S

DMsurf

DMedge

DMridge

DPedge

Presence

DPbutt

Exp. ID

DPridge

Figure 3.20. Microscopic traces on exp. 19/1B

502 501 501 501 501 502 502 503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 503 0 0 502 0 503 0 503 0 600 201 201 501 8 1 8 600 201 0 0 0 0 501 0 0 600 0

Figure 3.21. Microscopic traces on exp. 19/3C

part (Fig. 3.20). The same polish is present on the ventral and dorsal edges and surfaces, especially on the ventral medial and proximal left edges. The right edge shows less developed and less continuously distributed polish, associated with more damage initiated from the dorsal right edge. This damage consists of feather-terminating scalar scars and vertical sliced scars, uneven in size, in distinct run-together patches along the edge (Pl. 131), in a pattern which corresponds to the pressure exerted by the fingers. Damage is absent on the left edge, largely due to the burin facet, and the polish intrudes into the concavities of the edge, which is typical for prehension polish (i.e., soft contact material). Bone use polish would show a different pattern and intrusion, given that bone is a hard contact material. The differing pattern on both lateral edges seems typical for prehension polish in comparison to hafting polish: it depends on the position of the fingers and is thus never identical over both edges. In this case, concentrations are located on the ventral left edge, the dorsal medial ridge and the dorsal right edge. Remarkably, the hand itself does not leave noticeable (fresh hide) polish; the bone dust dominates the polish formation. There is no visible limit in the traces between the used and grasped tool portion. Prehension traces are more difficult to observe on exp. 19/1C, due to abundant retouch striations (Table 5.2). Since the piece was retouched with an antler hammer, the resulting striations largely obliterate potential bone prehension polish. On the dorsal ridges and edges (medial in particular) well-developed prehension polish was nevertheless observed as technological striations were absent. On the proximal right edge, the prehension damage pattern is clear: small scalar (Pl. 132) and rectangular featherterminating scars on the dorsal face, and unevenly sized

scalar and sliced feather- and step-terminating scars distributed in run-together patches on the ventral face (Pl. 133). Exp. 19/3C is a truly remarkable piece. The prehension antler polish is so extensive that it could easily be mistaken for use-wear if one did not pay attention to all its characteristics (Fig. 3.21). The right edge in particular shows welldeveloped polish (Pl. 134-136) with associated grooves and rounding (Pl. 135-136) which could potentially be mistaken for transverse use on antler. There are however important differences in distribution and extent. It is best developed on protruding parts, but only within three separate zones of the edge, corresponding with the location of the fingers during use (Fig. 3.22). In between, even protruding parts do not show moderately developed polish. This evidently contraindicates a use origin. Furthermore, polish is limited to the outer edge and does not intrude into the surface, despite its intensity and associated rounding. At least a minimal polish intrusion would be expected for a transverse use motion. Finally, the scarring pattern (Pl. 137) with mainly feather-terminating scalar scars in a runtogether distribution is again concentrated in those zones that had finger contact, unlike any use-related scarring. On the ventral left edge, polish is only moderately developed and no rounding or damage is associated with it (Pl. 138). The polish intrudes more into the inner surface than on the opposite edge, but it has no true impact on the edge, permitting it to be distinguished from that from use and from hafting. On the dorsal left edge, scarring is barely visible due to retouch. There is no clear boundary between the used and hand-held part, but there is a zone without much use or prehension polish. The prehension polish starts far into the

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

Figure 3.22. Exp. 19/3C

distal zone. Macroscopically, there are two dorsal scars, one on each edge, which could perhaps be interpreted as marking a haft limit; however, this limit cannot be confirmed microscopically. The prehension polish starts just below; it is far too developed for hafting and it is present all over the tool. This tool demonstrates the importance of investigating traces other than use-wear in order to prevent mistakes. In addition, it provides a more reliable measure for estimating total tool use duration: the prehension traces are very developed while use-wear traces are limited due to several resharpening sessions. The prehension wear is thus the only indication of use for two hours. This remarkable trace pattern suggests that some tools with combined (i.e., dual) use (i.e., tip + lateral edge) may need to be reexamined in order to ascertain that the interpretation is truly of dual use and not the combined presence of use (tip) and prehension wear (lateral edge). Similar patterns are observed on exp. 19/5C. Traces are undoubtedly due to prehension, based on a discontinuous distribution corresponding to the position of the hand, the absence of a clear boundary with the used tool portion, and intrusion far into the distal part (Table 5.2; Pl. 139-140). The polish on the dorsal (Pl. 141) and ventral butt (Pl. 142) is very extensive because the tool rested in the palm of the hand during use. The tool was used for 50 minutes, so traces are less extensive than on exp. 19/3C. Rounding is absent. Scarring is very limited; it was invisible under low power, largely because both dorsal edges were retouched. Again, the traces on the butt could easily be mistaken for use-wear if one does not realise that prehension wear can form.

55

Exp. 25/1 confirms the patterns described (Table 5.2). Polish is best developed on the dorsal and ventral left edges and the ridges; again there is a marked difference between the two lateral edges. The poorer polish development with reference to some other hand-held tools can be explained by less intensive use, more limited pressure exerted, and especially by the fact that hands were cleaned at several intervals during use, which is a major factor in reducing prehension wear. Despite the poor to moderate polish development, no limit could be defined and traces indicate hand-held use. Scarring is present in particular on the left edge (ventral and dorsal) and consists of small scalar and sliced scars, generally feather terminating (or vertical for the sliced scars) (Pl. 143). No obvious curved or bent initiations could be noted, which suggests that these may indeed be valuable indicators of the use of bindings. While prehension scars are generally inventoried as “uneven”, they are far more evenly sized in comparison to hafting scars. A run-together pattern and distribution in distinct patches are frequent. A few tiny striations occur on the dorsal most proximal ridge and are attributed to hand contact. The trace pattern is distinct from the hafting trace patterns described above and the tool can be interpreted on a low power level as having been used in the hand. To summarise, prehension wear is distinctive based on: (1) the absence of a boundary between the used and handheld tool portions; (2) a differing trace pattern between the two lateral edges which is linked with the position of the hand (i.e., fingers versus thumb) during use (it cannot be confused with an oblique haft limit as traces are too discontinuous over the edges and often occur in the medial zone of one edge only); (3) the prehension and use polish are always caused by the same contact material, i.e., dust from the material being worked causes friction between the hand and stone tool; (4) scarring is limited and consists mainly of small scalar feather-terminating scars and sliced scars; (5) no bright spots occur, and striations are rare. 3.5.3 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria Hafting traces s.s. proved to be distinct from prehension and wrapping wear. The addition of a handle significantly influences the hafting trace formation process and intensity, which contrasts with the use of a wrapping. Prehension polish is mainly determined by the material being worked and the flesh of the hands has no major impact. Trace patterning proved to be more important for prehensile wear than for use-wear: it is the positioning of certain traces over the tool which permits the attribution to hafting or prehension. Use-wear is concentrated in one particular (limited) tool portion. The criteria which allow different forms of prehensile wear to be distinguished are summarised in Fig. 3.23. These criteria will be supplemented with more data later, but they are sufficient for a distinction between hand-held, wrapped and hafted tools to be made.

56

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Trace attribute LIMIT polish

scarring

bright spots striations TRACE DISTRIBUTION MACROSCOPIC gloss

* location

scarring MICROSCOPIC MOST IMPORTANT TRACE(S) POLISH polish morphology number of polishes (all polishes) polish location SCARRING scar morphology scar termination BRIGHT SPOTS bright spot characteristics bright spot associations STRIATIONS hafting striations striation orientation striation associations ROUNDING

Prehension no no limit (intrudes far towards working edge) no limit

Hafting Wrapping yes (best observable on edges) abrupt start of limited polish abrupt start of different kind of scarring

“real” handle yes (best observable on edges) abrupt start of potentially different polish (certainly different for distribution, extension, etc.) abrupt start of different kind of scarring: generally larger and more uneven in size (at limit often distinct patch) frequent limit rare, may mark haft limit equal (but potentially oblique)

no limit rare, no limit unequal

potential limit rare, potential limit equal (but potentially oblique)

if present: general gloss, but more intense in some zones than in others all over tool, largely independent of microtopography small, more or less evenly sized

absent

if present: spots, patches, streaks

absent

restricted tool portion, partly dependent of tool morphology and microtopography

intermediate

larger, generally uneven in size

polish = rare, also scarring

polish, scarring and bright spots

polish (also scarring)

corresponds to use polish one: use = prehension

all over tool

depends on hafting material depends on hafting material 2 or 3: use + wrapping (+ depends on arrangement: 2 or 3: use + haft prehension polish when (+ bindings / wrapping / resin) incomplete wrapping) restricted well-defined zone restricted well-defined zone

dominantly scalar, sliced, nibbling tends to be smoother

dominantly scalar, sliced, nibbling in between

varied: often scalar, also trapezoidal, sliced (with variations), crushing tends to be more abrupt (i.e. for haft contact in particular)

no real bright spots, but well-developed polish spots integrated in polish

rare, generally small

frequent, can be very large

potentially with scarring, often isolated

often with scarring = very significant

insignificant varied none

insignificant insignificant potentially with scarring

frequent

rare

insignificant partly depends on action undertaken very significant when associated with scarring rare

Figure 3.23. Traits for distinguishing between prehensile modes (assuming terminal / latero-distal hafting)

3.6

DOES HAND-HELD USE RESULT IN PREHENSION WEAR WITH A RECURRENT PATTERN?

Recurrence of trace patterns is a condition enabling the interpretation of prehension traces and the examination of their internal variability. Minor variations on a recurring pattern are acceptable because stone tools are never

identical and the pattern may be affected by tool morphology (see infra). The experimental conditions of the tools included are as identical as possible: one experimenter used one toolset, in which use motion, material worked and use duration remained the same (except when an occasional fracture in use prevented further use). Two tool sets with differing uses (wood grooving and bone perforation) are discussed in order to rule out the recurrent pattern being a

Exp. ID

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

DDridge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

VDedge

BUTT

57

DPbutt

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

clear limit

Exp. 22/59 Exp. 22/60 Exp. 22/61 Exp. 22/62 Exp. 22/63

501 501 502 501 501

501 501 501 502 502

502 501 502 502 502

501 501 501 502 501

502 502 222 501 503

502 501 501 501 502

501 501 0 501 501

502 501 602 601 601

501 501 501 501 503

501 502 502 502 502

502 501 501 501 501

0 502 501 502 501

502 501 501 501 501

501 501 501 501 501

502 501 602 601 603

501 501 502 501 501

0 0 0 0 0

Figure 3.24. Polish intensity per (relevant) tool part

consequence of tool use only. More toolsets are available within the reference collection, but they are not treated in detail as the results match those already achieved. 3.6.1 Grooving wood Five tools (burins) are included here, exp. 22/59-22/63, all but one (exp. 22/59) fabricated out of fine-grained flint (Table 1.2). One person used the tools for periods of 40 min. to 1 hour. Differences between the stone tools are listed as they may have influenced the trace pattern. Remnants of cortex (Table 3.1) are present on the dorsal proximal left part of exp. 22/61. Coarse inclusions (Table 3.2) which may hinder trace development and influence the trace pattern are quite extensively present on exp. 22/63: on most of the dorsal proximal part, the dorsal medial left edge, and the ventral proximal left edge. Retouch is present in variable amounts and with variable coarseness (Table 3.3). No fractures (Table 3.6) occurred. There are some differences in tool morphology (Table 3.5), for instance the longitudinal convexity, and there are moderate to great differences in size (maximal length) and lateral angles (Table 3.4). The potential impact of each of these differences on the trace pattern is mentioned when appropriate. 3.6.1.1 Macroscopic analysis Macroscopic scarring is rare. Dorsal scars around a potential haft limit were observed on three tools, exp. 22/59, 22/60 and 22/63, but in two cases these scars were caused by intentional retouch. On exp. 22/60, the scar resulted from hand-held use. On exp. 22/59, 22/60 and 22/62, prehension scars are present on the ventral medial edges. The absence of such scars on exp. 22/63 may be due to retouching and also the coarse inclusions may have hindered scar formation. The absence of prehension scars on exp. 22/61 is due to heavy knapping damage on the left edge, but no satisfactory explanation can be provided for the right edge: the edge angle is low, retouch is absent, etc. Possibly the hand was positioned differently during use. Light macroscopic prehension gloss could be observed on the ventral proximal surface of exp. 22/60. The macroscopic traces are too limited to determine whether prehension traces are recurring. 3.6.1.2 Microscopic analysis On a microscopic level, wood prehension polish is present on the hand-held part of each tool (Fig. 3.24). While differences in polish intensity exist between the different tool parts, there are also clear similarities. For all tools, polish is concentrated in the ventral proximal zone, on the

surface and/or bulb, and on the dorsal ridges (and adjacent surface). Polish is always present on the edges, but the pattern is not consistent for all tools. A common feature is the differential distribution on both lateral edges. A good example is exp. 22/59 (Fig. 3.25). The prehension polish is concentrated on the left edge (Pl. 144) and the medial right edge (both dorsal: Pl. 145 and ventral: Pl. 146), corresponding to the position of the hand. On exp. 22/60, the pattern is the same, though less developed. On exp. 22/61 and 22/62, the pattern is inverted: the polish is present in both the proximal and medial zones of the right edge, while it is present only on the left proximal edge. For both tools, this pattern is most obvious on the dorsal face. The same pattern is formed on exp. 22/63, but in a less pronounced way. Two groups can thus be distinguished based on the polish distribution on the edges that correspond to the exact way in which the tool was held. Both exp. 22/59 and 22/60 have an additional trace concentration on their medial surface. The main area of contact for these tools was the medial zone and left tool part. The main area of contact for the second group was the proximal zone and right tool part. The observed prehension polish pattern is argued to be recurring, even though two groups are present. The prehension polish development on the edges appears to depend on the tool width: the wider the tool, the less developed the edge prehension polish. 18

ridge

distal edge medial

proximal

Figure 3.25. Exp. 22/59: prehension polish pattern from grooving wood18

18

The figure is an abstract representation of the dorsal face of a hypothetical tool (see 2.5.4). The circles and ovals mark the prehension polish concentrations.

58

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

The scarring pattern follows the polish pattern. On the first two tools, there is a concentration on the left edge, while the three last tools show a concentration of scarring on the proximal right edge. Retouch has an influence, for instance, on the left edge of exp. 22/59, where it reduces the explicitness of the patterning. Nevertheless, the scarring pattern confirms the polish pattern, and supports its recurring nature. Edge rounding is visible on exp. 22/59 only, on the ventral medial left edge and the most proximal right edge, in association with intense polish formation. This occurrence is too limited to enable one to examine a potential recurrent pattern. Also there are insufficient bright spots to permit this type of investigation. A bright spot is present on the ventral most proximal left edge of exp. 22/59 (influence of flint particles) and on the ventral proximal surface of exp. 22/63 (i.e., a well-developed polish spot; Pl. 147). No striations are observed on any of the tools.

3.6.2 Perforating bone Five tools (burins) – exp. 22/85 up to 22/89 – are included here. All but one tool (exp. 22/85) were fabricated out of coarse-grained flint (Table 1.2). One person used the tools for between 30 and 45 minutes. Cortex is present on the distal middle part of exp. 22/88 (Table 3.1), largely outside the hand-held portion. No inclusions are present (Table 3.2) and retouch varies in amount and degrees of coarseness (Table 3.3). For all tools at least one of the proximal and one of the medial dorsal edges were retouched. Overall, the retouch coarseness in the proximal and medial zone is limited. Exp. 22/89 is the only tool showing a fracture (Table 3.6): a proximal knapping fracture which removed the bulb. Sizes, cross-sections, longitudinal convexities, etc. are comparable, while the lateral angles differ (lateral angles are difficult to control) (Table 3.4 and 3.5). 3.6.2.1 Macroscopic analysis Prehension scarring was formed on the ventral proximal edges only, apart from on exp. 22/89, which also shows scarring on the ventral medial edge. Scarring is limited, apart from on exp. 22/88 and 22/89. No prehensile gloss was observed on any of the tools. 3.6.2.2 Microscopic analysis The prehension polish can be attributed to bone: the particles of the material worked (bone) that cover the hand during use form the dominant factor in its formation. On all but one tool, the prehension polish is better developed on the ventral medial left than on the medial right edge (Table 5.2; Fig. 3.26). Only exp. 22/88 shows an inverted pattern. On the ventral proximal edges, the opposite is true: the right edge now shows the best-developed polish (right: Pl. 148, left: Pl. 149). On exp. 22/88, there is no real difference between the two edges, apart from a tendency towards an opposite pattern. Exp. 22/88 is wider than the other tools, it has lower edge angles, and the dorsal proximal right and medial left edges are unretouched; this may have forced the user to change his hand position. Overall, the ventral polish consists of a few polish spots, especially on protrud-

distal

ridge

edge medial

proximal

Figure 3.26. Microscopic prehension polish pattern from perforating bone19

ing points. It is nevertheless interpretable with moderate certainty. Traces on the ventral bulb may occasionally be somewhat better developed. On the dorsal face, the ridges show the best-developed and most extensive polish formation (Pl. 150). On surfaces, only protrusions carry betterdeveloped prehension polish, and the edges also show poor polish formation, apart from the medial and proximal left edges of exp. 22/87, and the medial left and proximal right edges of exp. 22/89. The main contact with the hand was clearly situated around the ridges. The polish pattern is remarkably consistent among the experimental tools and it is clearly determined by the exact way in which the tool was held: if the position of the hand is the same, the resulting prehension polish pattern will be identical. The minor differences do not interrupt the recurring trace pattern (especially on the ventral edges). In comparison to the pattern described for wood grooving tools, there are only minor differences: the action performed probably necessitated a slightly different prehension mode. Scarring is generally limited, but on each tool there is at least one zone in which scarring is more intensive. In all cases, this zone is situated on the dorsal face and on an unretouched (or partially retouched) edge. Small scalar feather-terminating scars dominate. The scars are evenly sized, and run-together and wide distributions are mixed on one edge. On the dorsal medial left edges of exp. 22/87 and 22/88 elongated scars occur. The best interpretable scarring is systematically located on the dorsal medial and proximal edges, corresponding to the location of the best-developed polish on the ventral edges (i.e., the pressure of the hand on the ventral edges results in dorsal scarring). The scarring pattern is recurring and nicely confirms the polish pattern. There are no bright spots on the tools. Striations can be observed on exp. 22/88 only, on the ventral proximal left and right edges. These striations are attributed to contact with bone particles during hand-held use. Their orientation parallel to the edge evidences that they were produced by the back and forth movement of the hand during use. The 19

19

Solid line = well-developed prehension polish; dotted line = poorly developed prehension polish.

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

striations are short and narrow and almost resemble polish grooves instead of “real” striations. Minor rounding is observed on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/86 only. 3.6.3 Conclusion: prehensile wear is recurrent Based on both sets of tools, microscopic prehension wear proves to have a recurrent and diagnostic pattern which is independent of use motion and material worked, if all conditions are identical.

3.7

DOES HAFTED USE RESULT IN HAFTING WEAR WITH A RECURRENT PATTERN?

In order to establish that hafting wear is recurring, the variables within a particular toolset need to be kept constant (e.g., tool use, hafting arrangement). The recurrent nature of the hafting trace pattern is a prerequisite for a subsequent detailed investigation, and it is a feature that all hafted tools should have in common. It is essential for future distinction between hafting arrangements. Patterns should be consistent between all hafted tools, but also within one type of hafting arrangement. Toolsets are discussed which were used to groove wood, to perforate bone, and to cut cereals. Other toolsets are available, but they are not discussed in detail, given that matching results were obtained (see also Rots 2002a). Morphological differences within one toolset are listed. 3.7.1 Grooving wood In total, 15 tools are examined, divided over four different hafting arrangements. Each group consists of between two and five tools. 3.7.1.1 Juxtaposed direct hafting (wood) The burins included here are exp. 22/30 up to exp. 22/34. All tools are mounted with their ventral faces against a wooden haft and fixed with the aid of leather bindings

59

(Fig. 3.27). The use duration of all tools is exactly the same. Cortex is present on the right medial part of exp. 22/32 only (Table 3.1). Inclusions are present on four of the tools (not on exp. 22/30): in the most proximal zone of exp. 22/31, and more extensively and in variable locations on the other tools (Table 3.2). The hafted edges of three tools are fully retouched (Table 3.3). In each of these cases, retouch is quite coarse, implying that there may be a substantial impact on the formation of scarring. The hafted parts of both other tools remained unretouched. On the proximal end of one tool, exp. 22/33, a knapping fracture occurred (Table 3.6). Morphological variability (Table 3.5) remains within acceptable limits; only the lateral angles vary a little more (Table 3.4). Macroscopic analysis Hafting scars were formed in the haft limit area on exp. 22/31. Ridge damage was also produced. Both proximal and medial edges of the two tools with an unretouched hafted part show macroscopic scarring. Scarring is not always easy to distinguish on the other tools and it varies slightly in location. On exp. 22/34, there is no hafting scarring. Hafting scars are present on the dorsal hafted edges and the ventral butt of exp. 22/32 and on the dorsal and ventral medial edges of exp. 22/33. The presence of retouch and its coarseness seem to have influenced the scarring pattern. Whether the scarring pattern is recurrent cannot yet be defined. Macroscopic gloss formed. Light gloss is present on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 22/30. On exp. 22/31, moderate gloss was formed on the dorsal medial edge. Some gloss is also present on the ventral medial edge of exp. 22/33. The gloss formation is not very consistent and it does not have a recurring pattern. Microscopic analysis The hafting polish is best-developed and most extensive on edges and ridges (Fig. 3.28), in particular on the ventral edges (Pl. 151-152) and dorsal ridges (Pl. 153). On the surface, polish is so poorly developed (often patches) that it is not really interpretable. There is no difference in polish development and extent between the left and right edges. In most cases, it is even remarkably similar. On none of the tools can a real difference between the proximal and medial zones be distinguished either. An occasional minor

VENTRAL

DORSAL

ridge edge haft limit

Figure 3.27. Juxtaposed direct hafting on wood

Figure 3.28. Hafting polish pattern for a juxtaposed direct hafting on wood

60

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

polish accumulation is situated in the medial zone (unless the pattern is disturbed by scarring, e.g., ventral medial edge of exp. 22/31). On the dorsal and ventral butts and on the bulbs, polish is generally poorly developed; only on the ventral butt of exp. 22/33 is the polish somewhat more extensive. The polish pattern is thus remarkably consistent in its formation. The amount of scarring differs significantly between unretouched and retouched tools. It is of course most extensive on unretouched tools. On exp. 22/32, the only distinct scarring is present on the ventral most proximal right edge, while on exp. 22/33 scars are present only on the ventral most proximal left edge and on the ventral left butt. On exp. 22/34 scars are absent. This contrasts with the scarring patterns on exp. 22/30 and 22/31, which differ slightly among themselves. On the dorsal medial edges and the dorsal proximal right edge the pattern is more or less consistent between the two tools, if one takes into account that edge morphology differs. The most important reason for differences between these two tools seems to lie in their differing longitudinal convexity: both tools are curved in longitudinal section when considered over their full length, but exp. 22/31 is straight when the hafted part only is considered. This has a profound influence on the amount of haft contact. The lateral angles of exp. 22/30 are higher than on exp. 22/31, which explains why the ventral medial edge damage of exp. 22/31 is more extensive. On all tools small to moderately sized scalar scars dominate next to trapezoidal scars. Most have a diffuse initiation and terminate in feather or step. Potential binding scars are located on the left edge, dorsal and/or ventral, and they are associated with a curved or bent initiation. Overall, a run-together pattern dominates. Can this hafting scarring be called recurrent? The main problem with this toolset is the presence of coarse retouch on three of the five tools. This partially reduces the toolset to two comparable tools, especially since both are fabricated out of fine-grained flint while the others are fabricated out of coarse flint. Two tools are insufficient for an adequate understanding of the cause of some differences, but there is a tendency towards a recurring pattern. Bright spots are present to a limited extent on three tools; most of these are in fact well-developed polish spots (mainly due to wood contact). On each of these tools bright spots are present on the ventral proximal edge. On one tool some more spots are present on the dorsal proximal edge, on another tool on the ventral medial edge and dorsal medial ridge. There is some consistency, but it is not yet very convincing. On two tools, exp. 22/30 and 22/31, striations are observed. On the second tool, the exact cause of these striations is not completely clear due to which this tool has to be omitted here. On exp. 22/30 a few wood striations can be observed on the butt and ventral butt. It is clear that striations are not very characteristic of hafting. Rounding is present, but only on the ridges. On exp. 22/31 it is located in the proximal zone, on exp. 22/33 in the medial zone. On the latter tool, some rounding can also be distinguished in the distal zone, where it is caused by the

placing of the finger above the haft, directly on the stone tool. Apart from being very restricted in nature, rounding is not really a distinctive criterion for hafting, as is illustrated by exp. 22/33. There is consistency in its location – if present – but this is insufficient to support a recurring pattern. 3.7.1.2 Male split direct hafting (antler) Three tools are considered: exp. 22/48 up to 22/50 (Table 1.1). Cortex is present on each tool: on the first two in the distal middle zone, on the third in the right tool part (Table 3.1). No inclusions are present (Table 3.2). All edges apart from the medial right edge of exp. 22/48 and the right edge of exp. 22/49 are retouched (Table 3.3). Exp. 22/48 shows fine retouch, exp. 22/49 coarse retouch and exp. 22/50 a mixture of fine (right) and moderate (left) retouch. A retouch fracture occurred on the original distal end of exp. 22/50 (Table 3.6). It is initiated from the dorsal face and terminates in a hinge. Tool morphologies vary (Table 3.5), as do their lengths and lateral angles (Table 3.4). Macroscopic analysis The prominent point of the ridge of exp. 22/48 is crushed; that can be attributed to hafting. Apart from that, there are only macroscopic scars on the ventral butt of exp. 22/50. Gloss formation is limited. It is mainly present on the dorsal face, in particular on exp. 22/50. There are no bulbar gloss concentrations because the bulbar zone is not the thickest part of any of the tools and pressure is thus not concentrated in that zone. Gloss was formed on the dorsal proximal surfaces of exp. 22/49 and 22/50, and further on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 22/48, and the dorsal medial surface, ventral butt and ventral proximal surface of exp. 22/50. Gloss formation seems to depend on the intensity of haft contact, which is determined by tool morphology. VENTRAL

DORSAL ridge edge haft limit

Figure 3.29. Hafting polish pattern for a male split direct hafting in antler

Microscopic analysis The polish pattern shows a concentration on the bulb – or, when absent, on the ventral butt (prominent in such cases) – the dorsal proximal surface, and the dorsal medial ridge (Fig. 3.29). Polish is also present on the butt, and there is occasional well-developed polish on the edges. There is an additional concentration on the dorsal proximal ridge and medial surface, possibly a consequence of tool morphology and a regular thickness, which resulted in more even

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

polish development. The polish pattern of this toolset is sufficiently consistent to support a recurring pattern. Scarring intensity differs between most lateral edges and its pattern proves to be determined by the location of unretouched or finely retouched edges. On both exp. 22/49 and 22/50, scarring is concentrated on the right edge, which remained unretouched and finely retouched respectively. The scars are small to moderately sized, scalar, mainly feather- and step-terminating, with diffuse, sometimes curved initiations, in run-together distributions. A few bright spots are located on the ventral left proximal surface of exp. 22/50. These are no “real” bright spots, but well-developed antler polish spots. They are integrated in the remaining hafting antler polish and correspond to localised more intense friction. Striations are present on all three tools in a consistent pattern. Antler striations are present on the dorsal proximal surface of all three tools, orientated parallel or slightly obliquely to the tool’s axe. There are perpendicularly orientated striations on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/48 and the dorsal butt of exp. 22/50, and oblique striations on the ventral bulb of exp. 22/49. Although these locations differ, the consistent presence of striations on the dorsal proximal surface supports the existence of a recurring pattern. No rounding was formed on any of the tools. 3.7.1.3 Male split indirect hafting (wood) Three tools are examined, exp. 22/45 up to 22/47 (Table 1.1; Tables 3). Resin remains were removed by immersion in acetone to dissolve the resin and prevent friction. Cortex is absent. Coarse inclusions are present on exp. 22/46, mainly on the dorsal face. Retouch is limited: the left edge of exp. 22/45, the medial right edge of exp. 22/46 and the medial left edge of exp. 22/47 were retouched. The coarsest retouch is present on exp. 22/45. There is a knapping fracture at the proximal end of exp. 22/47, which removed the bulb. The longitudinal curvature is most pronounced on exp. 22/46. Tool sizes differ: exp. 22/45 is the widest and, given the haft width, it is the only tool that protrudes. Also the lateral angles differ. Macroscopic analysis Scars are present round the haft limit of two tools, exp. 22/45 and 22/46. On exp. 22/46 they can be attributed to hafting. The remaining scars are not interpretable on a macroscopic level, apart from production and use scars. Scars are nevertheless observable on the dorsal proximal and the dorsal and ventral medial edges of exp. 22/45, and on the dorsal medial edge of exp. 22/46. Gloss is present on the ventral bulb of exp. 22/45. Even though the bulbar zones of exp. 22/45 and exp. 22/46 are equally thick, more intense contact was possible for exp. 22/45 due to a larger bulbar area and the longitudinal curve of exp. 22/45. Microscopic analysis Polish pattern proves to be heavily influenced by tool size. Most polish can be observed on exp. 22/45, which is not only the widest, but also the thickest tool. The least polish is formed on exp. 22/47, which is the narrowest and

61

thinnest tool. In all but one case, it is resin friction polish. Only on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/45 can very limited wood polish be observed. Given its thickness, the tool made direct contact with the haft in spite of the use of resin. The intensity and extent of resin friction polish are also determined by tool morphology. The more prominent zones show the most intense and developed polish (e.g., ventral bulb of exp. 22/45, Pl. 154). The haft material itself rarely leaves traces, which implies that resin use limits the chances of determining the haft material. The fact that a haft existed can be based on the simple fact that polish was formed, or there would have been no friction and no wear. Although small scars were noted during the high power analysis, scarring is limited under low power. Scars are present on unretouched edges with a low edge angle. Scalar, trapezoidal and triangular morphologies, diffuse initiations, snap and feather terminations are the most recurrent characteristics. Distribution is variable. The scars in the medial zone noted during the macroscopic analysis should be attributed to production, in particular prehension during burin spall production (see section 3.3.1.2). Consequently, the scar characteristics and the scarring pattern cannot be considered to be recurrent, even though unretouched edges with a low angle always show scars. Scarring does not appear to be very important in this kind of arrangement; resin is no doubt responsible. The same haft type in combination with bindings shows a far more characteristic scarring pattern. Resin friction spots (categorised as bright spots) are present on two of the tools. In particular on exp. 22/45 several examples formed (Pl. 155). On the ventral medial left and proximal right edges, they have a distinct directional aspect and are most likely to be attributed to de-hafting. On the ventral bulb, there are many moderately sized spots. Given their extent, at least some must have been produced during hafted use, but a few – in particular those with perpendicular grooves – may be due to back and forth movement upon extraction. On the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/46 a number of friction spots occur; they lack a directional aspect and were probably formed during hafted use (Pl. 156). While the location of these spots may seem variable, they are systematically located on thicker tool zones where the most intense resin friction occurred. Consequently, morphology always needs to be taken into account when examining the recurrent nature of trace patterns. One striation was formed on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/45. It is attributed to friction with a resin particle upon de-hafting. No rounding was observed. 3.7.1.4 Standard leather bindings Exp. 22/54 and 22/57 are considered (Fig. 3.30; Table 1.1; Tables 3). Cortex is present in the distal middle zone of exp. 22/54, and an inclusion is present on the medial left edge of exp. 22/54. Apart from minor fine retouch on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/57, no retouch is present in the hafted area. No fractures occurred. The longitudinal curvature and the transverse cross-section are the same. There are some size differences, but, given the hafting arrangement, these are not expected to affect the trace pattern.

62

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

3.7.1.5 Conclusion For all hafted tools used to groove wood the trace pattern proved to be recurrent in nature. The most characteristic traces are polish, scarring, and occasionally bright spots and striations. Rounding is not very characteristic. The exact hafting arrangement or hafting material caused some differences between the trace patterns, while not interfering with the similarities found in the wear patterns of all hafted tools in contrast to other kinds of wear, in particular prehension wear. 3.7.2 Perforating bone A second toolset with a different use and a few new hafting arrangements is considered. Nine tools are included here, divided over three hafting arrangements (Table 1.1).

Figure 3.30. Hafting with standard leather bindings

Macroscopic analysis Macroscopic hafting scars are present on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 22/54 and on all edges of exp. 22/57, including the haft limit. Macroscopic gloss was not observed, most probably due to poor friction.

3.7.2.1 Male split indirect hafting Three tools, exp. 22/16 up to 22/18, are hafted in a male split wooden haft and fixed with resin (Fig. 3.31; Table 1.1; Tables 3). Exp. 22/18 is made out of a coarse-grained flint, while both the other tools were made out of fine-grained flint. No cortex or inclusions are present. Very fine retouch is present on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/16 and on both dorsal medial edges of exp. 22/18. No fractures occurred. Morphological differences are mainly situated on the level of the lateral angles. Macroscopic analysis

Microscopic analysis The best-developed polish is prehension polish, not hafting polish: in the most proximal zone of both tools, clear wood prehension polish can be observed. This is not surprising when bindings are used: bindings frequently stop before the tool’s extremity to prevent them from loosening during use. As a result, direct contact with the hand is possible. Hafting polish is rare and poorly developed. After all, little friction occurs in this kind of arrangement. Polish occurs on ridges and edges, but it hardly reaches an interpretable stage. The scarring pattern is quite characteristic. On both tools scars are lacking on a low power level on the ventral medial right edge. On the other edges, sliced scars and curved and twisted initiations are frequent. On exp. 22/54, sliced into scalar scars were formed on the dorsal proximal left edge. Association of these kinds of scars with the use of bindings was regularly observed. Terminations are quite variable but, given the frequency of sliced scars, vertical terminations are numerous. Scars are generally distributed in a run-together pattern. The scarring pattern is consistent, especially on the level of scar morphology and initiation. A few small bright spots occur on the dorsal proximal left edge and medial right edge of exp. 22/57. They are associated with scarring and can be attributed to a short but intense period of friction with a flint particle. A few short perpendicularly orientated striations could be observed on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/57. They are attributed to friction with a flint particle. No rounding was observed.

Figure 3.31. Male split wooden hafting, fixed with resin

Scars round the haft limit occur on the dorsal face of exp. 22/16. On all hafted edges of exp. 22/16 and 22/17, except the ventral medial edges of exp. 22/16 (due to retouching), there are macroscopic hafting scars. On exp. 22/18 no macroscopically interpretable hafting scarring was formed. There is one gloss patch on the dorsal medial right edge and adjacent surface of exp. 22/17; it is due to intense localised resin friction.

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

Microscopic analysis On all tools, particles of the material worked had a major influence on polish formation: given that only limited resin was used to fix the tools in their hafts, particles of the material being worked worked their way into the arrangement and produced a minor polish formation. The resulting faint polish spots could be attributed to bone (Pl. 157). The amount of polish differs between the tools, depending on the resin coverage. Most bone polish was formed on exp. 22/16, while none was noticed on exp. 22/18. This confirms the impact of particles of the material worked and resin coverage on polish formation: exp. 22/18 is the widest tool and should logically show more polish, but its edges are covered with resin. The possibility that intruding particles of the material worked may cause polish formation is an important factor to take into account on an archaeological level. The amount of scarring on each tool confirms the above interpretation. While scarring is abundant on exp. 22/16, no scars can be noted on exp. 22/18. This is logical when the edges are covered with resin. Scarring is present on all edges of exp. 22/16. It consists in the main of scalar scars, but trapezoidal and sliced scars also occur. Terminations are often abrupt. Scars are distributed in a run-together pattern, often alternating between both faces. On exp. 22/17, scarring is more reduced, but apart from the alternating pattern, it has similar characteristics. The scarring pattern of resin hafted tools is thus not really recurrent as it depends on the presence or absence of resin. When resin is abundant, scarring is poor or absent. The principle noted for polish formation (i.e., intruding particles of the material worked) is confirmed for bright spots. Again most spots are formed on exp. 22/16 (Pl. 158) while they are absent on exp. 22/18. All but one spot are well-developed isolated bone polish spots. Only the gloss patch which was noted macroscopically on exp. 22/17 could be attributed to resin friction. No striations or rounding were formed. When little resin is used in male split arrangements, it may hamper the hafting identification of tools (on an archaeological level). If resin friction wear is absent, the faint bone polish spots may be interpreted as resulting from a bone haft, even though one would expect more intense polish formation and a more regular distribution over the edges and ridges. If sufficient resin had been used, this arrangement would probably not have left traces apart from a clear interruption of the use-wear traces (e.g., exp. 22/18). 3.7.2.2 Male direct hafting Three tools are examined, exp. 22/19 up to 22/21, all fabricated out of fine-grained flint (Fig. 3.32; Table 1.1, Tables 3). Cortex is present on exp. 22/20 only, on the proximal left tool part and the central medial and distal tool parts. There is one small inclusion on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 22/21. The dorsal edges of exp. 22/21 and the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 22/20 are retouched, while retouch is absent in the hafted part of exp. 22/19. All retouch is moderately coarse. A knapping fracture occurred at the proximal end of exp. 22/21. The fracture was initiated from the dorsal ridge. There are no major morphological differ-

63

Figure 3.32. Male direct hafting

ences, apart from the absence of a bulb on exp. 22/21 and the lateral angles. Macroscopic analysis There are scars around the haft limit on exp. 22/19 and 22/21, on both faces, and there is some ridge crushing due to hafting on exp. 22/19. Most hafted edges show hafting scarring, except the ventral medial edge of exp. 22/20. Overall, scarring is far more intense than on the previous tools, no doubt due to the mode of hafting. No macroscopic gloss was noted. Microscopic analysis Traces are best developed on exp. 22/19, probably due to its reduced proximal width in comparison to the other tools: it is the only tool with its maximum width round the exact haft limit, while the remaining hafted tool part is narrower. Consequently, more movement was possible inside the haft, resulting in more intense polish, scarring and bright spots. The best-developed polish is situated on the medial edges, where there was the closest contact with the haft (Fig. 3.33). On the other tools, contact with the haft is more evenly

ridge edge haft limit

Figure 3.33. Hafting polish pattern for a male direct hafting

64

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

spread and the resulting traces are more evenly distributed, with concentrations on prominent points, on the bulb in particular. The absence of a bulb on exp. 22/21 precluded this phenomenon. The scarring pattern differs from that of previous tools. The main reason seems to be the hafting arrangement (this type of hafting arrangement was not yet included up to now) in combination with the use motion. In a perforating motion, much pressure is exerted on the edges within the haft, causing a particular scarring pattern. Especially on exp. 22/19 scars are present which were earlier associated with the use of bindings: e.g., sliced scars with twisted initiations and sliced into scalar scars with straight into curved initiations. Their occurrence can be explained by the fact that the kind of pressure exerted on the edges during use is essentially the same as that exerted by bindings. It is pressure which is exerted perpendicular to or obliquely on one face, close to the edge: when the pressure is perpendicular sliced scars are formed, when it is oblique (from the inner surface onward) sliced into scalar scars are formed. The latter kind of pressure contrasts with the formation of “standard” scars (e.g., scalar scars): the pressure is also exerted obliquely on the edge, but from the outside, not from the inner surface. When an initiation curve occurs, it is generally less pronounced than in the case of bindings. Aside from the scars described, scalar scars, irregular scars and crushing are frequent. Terminations are often abrupt, even superposing, while the scars are quite consistently distributed in run-together patterns. Bright spots are observed mainly on exp. 22/19 (Pl. 159) and on the ventral left most proximal edge of exp. 22/20. All bright spots are due to friction with antler particles and are thus well-developed polish spots instead of “true” bright spots, but an influence from flint particles cannot always be entirely ruled out. A few antler striations, perpendicular to the edge, were formed on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/20 (Pl. 160). No rounding is present.

Figure 3.34. Male indirect hafting

3.7.2.3 Male indirect hafting Three tools are considered, exp. 22/22 up to 22/24 (Fig. 3.34; Table 1.1; Tables 3). Cortex is preserved on the right hafted tool parts of exp. 22/22 and 22/23. Inclusions are present on the left hafted tool part of exp. 22/24. No retouching of hafted edges took place. A fracture occurred during de-hafting at the proximal end of exp. 22/23; it was initiated from the main ridge and terminated in a hinge. Few morphological differences are observed. Macroscopic analysis Scars were formed round the haft boundaries of exp. 22/22 and 22/23. Most macroscopic scarring is present on the dorsal edges of exp. 22/22, but macroscopic hafting scars were also observed on the dorsal proximal edges of exp. 22/24. Exp. 22/23 mainly shows evidence of the fracture which occurred in the haft. Gloss was formed on the proximal edges and bulb of exp. 22/22, and on the ventral bulb, edges and surface of exp. 22/23, where it was caused by the fracture. Microscopic analysis In all cases, polish is concentrated in the proximal zone, in particular on the bulb. The most likely explanation is friction with resin particles upon de-hafting. After all, de-hafting a tool out of a male haft in which it is fixed with resin is not easy, and for two tools the resin was not heated but fractured. This implies that the tool was moved back and forth in order to loosen it before it was finally pulled out; a lot of friction with resin particles could occur. During hafted use, no (or hardly any) friction occurred in the haft. This interpretation is confirmed by the observations on exp. 22/24: this tool was de-hafted upon heating and polish is far more reduced (bright spots are absent). The scarring pattern is quite extensive. Given the hafting mode and the concentration of scars in the proximal zone, many scars may have been formed during hafting – before the resin was applied – and upon extraction from the haft (cf. polish). The scarring pattern is comparable to that described earlier for a direct hafting, but scars are less abundant. Sliced and sliced into scalar scars are again present, but less frequent. The same goes for crushing, abrupt terminations, superposition, and a run-together pattern. The scarring pattern is recurrent and confirms the pattern described previously. The reduced amount of scarring is entirely due to resin use. Bright spots are frequent on exp. 22/22. They are all concentrated in the (most) proximal zone and can be linked with resin friction, most probably during de-hafting (Pl. 161-163). On exp. 22/23 an almost identical pattern is observed, but it is less extensive. The absence of bright spots on exp. 22/24 was mentioned earlier and is a consequence of the different de-hafting method used. Two kinds of striations were formed, both on exp. 22/23. The first type was observed on the ventral proximal right surface: obliquely orientated striations which seem to be the result of resin friction during de-hafting. The second type was observed on the dorsal medial ridge, at the exact haft limit. It is an isolated obliquely orientated striation

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

which can be attributed to friction with a flint particle during hafted use. The striations on the ventral bulb of exp. 22/24 are orientated perpendicular to the edge and are again attributed to resin friction, probably during de-hafting. No rounding was formed. 3.7.2.4 Conclusion For each toolset, a recurrent hafting trace pattern was attested to, which confirms the results for the wood grooving tools. The recurrent nature of hafting traces appears not to be tool use-dependent. The amount of resin used for hafting, in particular the degree of coverage of the hafted part, determines whether contact with particles of the material worked can take place. Scars identified as being typical for bindings proved to occur on male hafted tools used in perforating motions. Also mounting and de-mounting a stone tool proved to influence the scarring pattern of male hafted tools, especially when resin was used. 3.7.3 Cutting cereals The exact use motion is a kind of slicing or chopping motion perpendicular to the blade edge instead of parallel to it. More intrusive use-wear traces are the result. Eight tools are included, all hafted in the same arrangement, but with a differing haft material (antler and wood). 3.7.3.1 Male indirect hafting (wood) Four tools are included, exp. 22/64 up to 22/67 (Fig. 3.35; Table 1.1; Tables 3). Cortex occurs only on the medial middle and right zones of exp. 22/65. No inclusions are present. All hafted edges are retouched. Distal knapping fractures occurred on exp. 22/64 and 22/66. No major morphological differences can be noted apart from the absence of the bulb on exp. 22/66.

65

Macroscopic analysis No hafting traces occur, but macroscopic use-wear traces are very extensive and permit the definition of the hafted area. Apart from use scarring, extensive and well-delimited use gloss is visible over the whole used tool portion. Hafting is thus evident. All tools included show exactly the same pattern. Microscopic analysis Few microscopic hafting traces are observed. Very faint resin friction polish spots are present on most hafted edges, but these barely reach an interpretable stage. It is clear that the interpretation of this type of tool needs to be based mainly on the absence of hafting polish and the sharp demarcation of well-developed use-wear. In addition, use-wear tends to accumulate at the haft boundary: either better-developed polish patches within a more poorly developed entity or more continuously distributed betterdeveloped polish. The faint polish spots present in the hafted zone can be used as an argument for the use of resin. The haft material did not cause any polish formation as the hafted zone was completely covered with resin. Resin friction polish formed in zones covered by the haft only; the surplus of resin outside the haft never resulted in friction wear. This can be explained by the fact that most friction probably occurred during de-hafting. A few striations occur on the ventral distal edge and dorsal medial (Pl. 164) and proximal surfaces of exp. 22/64, most certainly due to friction during extraction. Bright spots are observed on several tools and are caused by resin friction upon extraction from the haft (Pl. 165). Only in one case did a typical hafting bright spot form. It is nicely associated with a scar on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 22/65 (Pl. 166). No rounding or scarring can be observed. The lack of scarring is due to the retouched (hafted) edges. 3.7.3.2 Male indirect hafting (antler) Four tools are included, exp. 22/68 up to exp. 22/71 (Table 1.1; Tables 3). Cortex is preserved on the distal parts of exp. 22/68, 22/70 and 22/71; only on exp. 22/68 and 22/71 did it interfere with the hafting traces. Coarse inclusions (cortex in fact) are present on the distal part of exp. 22/70. In contrast to the previous toolset, not all hafted edges are retouched: only those on exp. 22/69 and partially on exp. 22/70. No important morphological differences can be observed. Macroscopic analysis There are no macroscopic hafting traces, only macroscopic use-wear traces, both scarring and gloss. As in the previous toolset, they permit the demarcation of the hafted area, a zone devoid of macroscopic wear.

Figure 3.35. Male indirect hafting in wood

Microscopic analysis Microscopically, the trace pattern also corresponds to that in the previous toolset. There are again only very faint resin friction polish spots in the hafted zone and no polish resulting from the haft material itself. Consequently, the haft material has no impact on the hafting trace pattern for this type of arrangement.

66

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Fewer hafted edges were retouched and some scars could be inventoried. Scarring is most intense on exp. 22/71, given the curved nature of the hafted tool portion causing close contact between the medial and most proximal edge part and the haft. Rather intense scarring formed on both faces. It consists of deep and abruptly terminating scalar and trapezoidal scars. The scars have a nearly continuous distribution. On the same tool, exp. 22/71, bright spots were formed, their formation is also attributed to increased friction due to a curved morphology, which is confirmed by their location at the two extremities of the haft. It is friction with flint particles as confirmed by their association with scarring, typical for hafting. No striations or rounding could be observed. 3.7.4 Conclusion: hafting wear is recurrent It is clear that the hafting trace pattern is consistent in its formation and can indeed be called recurrent. Every tool use or hafting arrangement does not result in the same number of traces or equally intense traces, but generally, patterns are confirmed. This implies that further investigation into the exact variability of hafting traces is justified. It also implies that it is not essential to include several identical tools (i.e., on the level of hafting and use) in order to support an argument adequately, even though it considerably strengthens the case.

3.8

ARE PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES INTERPRETABLE?

3.8.1 Preliminary blind test In order to examine whether prehension and hafting traces are interpretable in practice, a small blind test is included focussed on the following questions: can hand-held and hafted tools be distinguished and can the hafting arrangement be identified? The test is the first blind test which was undertaken with regard to hafting traces (Rots et al. 2006). The analytical data are included in tables 10 and concern the original analysis only; nothing has been changed following the test results. Here, the results are discussed. Mistakes are examined to try to explain their cause and to evaluate their importance: can they be avoided or are they a consequence of the limitations of the method? The results are perhaps not yet completely satisfactory, but it needs to be stressed that this test was undertaken at an early stage and thus reflects the potential of the method designed at the time. The results are not final; a second blind test is included in chapter 9 for that purpose and an additional one was published (Rots et al. 2006). The latter tests can be used to evaluate the true interpretative potential of prehensile wear. A preliminary blind test is however important for highlighting problematic issues and for guiding future experiments. It forms an important tool for quality improvement and accuracy. In contrast to the blind test presented in chapter 9, this first small and explorative test had certain guidelines for the experimenters: all

tools were to be used – in the hand or hafted – for at least 30 minutes, tools needed to be freshly prepared, without possible external friction (they could not be transported, trampled on, etc.). All other parameters were left up to the experimenters, so no guidelines concerning the material to be worked, activity, hafting, etc. were formulated. The tools were handed over to the analyst after de-hafting and cleaning. All tools were re-cleaned before the analysis was begun. 3.8.1.1 Results The test results are summarised in fig. 3.36. Of a total of eight tools, three were interpreted correctly on all levels, on three others minor mistakes were made, while two were misinterpreted. These results prove that hafting traces are produced and that they are interpretable: such a success rate cannot be coincidental. The errors are now discussed and evaluated. 3.8.1.2 Discussion Results are discussed at length in order to highlight interpretative problems. For each tool, the experimental data as provided by the experimenters are presented (Table 1.7) and subsequently compared with the analytical results (Tables 10). The certainty level of the proposed interpretation is included in brackets. It is evaluated on a scale from 0 (uncertain) to 4 (certain) (see chapter 2). BT 1 Experimental data. This tool was used to drill hard dry antler with a mechanical drill for approximately 30 minutes. The tool was hafted in a male split wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings. Interpretation. Use: grooving hard material, probably schist (2); Prehensile mode: hand-held (2). Discussion. The interpretation proved wrong on several levels. To start with the material worked, the tool was not used on schist, but on bone. The initial interpretation of the use polish was in fact bone, but, given the pronounced rounding, this interpretation was discarded. At the time it was not realised that bone drilling could indeed result in this kind of rounding. But even then, too much importance was attached to the presence of rounding. Re-examination of the 12 available experimental bone-drilling tools shows that all tools with limited use damage show at least some rounding. This factor was not sufficiently taken into account. The experimenters recorded that a very hard antler was worked and this may have contributed to the formation of rounding. The mistake was due partly to insufficient knowledge of available experimental evidence and partly because rounding was relied on too much as a decisive criterion, instead of the polish evidence. Next, the use motion was misinterpreted: a grooving motion instead of drilling. This inference was based on the limited damage: only one scar could be distinguished on the ventral tip. However, this scar was not investigated closely enough, as it initiated from the right side of the tip, which points to perforation or drilling, not grooving. The

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

RESULTS Used part Worked material Action Relative duration USE HAFTING PREHENSION Hafted / hand-held part Haft limit Haft material Contact zone haft Wrapping Contact zone wrapping Bindings Contact zone bindings Fixation Contact zone fixation Haft type Hafting method Tool placement Tool direction Orientation AP Stopping ridge INTERPRETATION

BT1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BT2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT3 1 0,5 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT5 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BT6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT8 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0,5

67

TOTAL (/ 8) 8 6,5 7 7 6,5 6 8 3 3 5 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 4,5

Figure 3.36. Results preliminary blind test (0= wrong, 1= correct, 0,5= partially correct interpretation)

limited damage nevertheless remains somewhat bizarre, as most corresponding experimental examples show considerable tip damage or even breakage. Of the 12 experimental examples of bone drilling tools, only three exhibit limited damage, but still more than on the example presented here (exp. 22/10 is the best comparable experimental reference). In addition, scars are generally laterally initiated and thus provide indubitable evidence for the use motion. This observation is important and should caution one against relying too much on the amount of use damage. The scar characteristics should be considered decisive. Re-examination of the use-wear makes it clear that the interpretation was misguided by the macroscopic analysis. In the latter, schist was inferred as the most likely material worked based on the presence of clear use gloss. When the polish is looked at in detail, it is in fact typical bone polish, especially on the dorsal ridge. There are no grounds for attaching so much importance to the rounding. The misinterpretation of use motion is worse, as it is a consequence of too superficial an analysis. The observation of use-wear traces on the dorsal ridges – whatever their nature – should have immediately resulted in the conclusion that this tool was used for perforation or drilling. In favour of the interpretation, it should be noted that it was classified as uncertain, as indicated by the figure in brackets. Lastly, the prehensile mode was also wrongly interpreted. A hand-held use was inferred with moderate certainty, while the tool was used in a male split wooden haft

and fixed with leather bindings. This misinterpretation of the prehensile mode was largely prompted by the wrong interpretation of the tool’s use. Use on schist can produce very pronounced prehension wear (see chapter 4). Therefore, all evidence on the non-active part of this tool was interpreted in this light and potential counter-evidence was not given its proper value. There are, however, several arguments against the interpretation: – the clear presence of macroscopic scarring contradicts hand-held use – a clear microscopic scarring pattern is present with the most intense damage situated on the ventral left and dorsal right edges; bindings perfectly account for that. – the number of bright spots (Pl. 167-169). – the combination of polish and bright spots, as can be observed in the inventorying table, without both being really integrated, is typical for hafting. – the polish is largely limited to the outer ridge (Pl. 170171), which is again typical for hafting. – the absence of well-developed polish on the dorsal right edge (also retouch ridges) contraindicates hand-held use as the fingers would be located there and cause an explicit polish formation – even bright spots in the case of schist use. In the case of a male haft, this zone is barely in contact with the haft, as evidenced by poor polish formation. – the presence of clear wood-like polish on the dorsal left fracture edge (butt), which can be explained only as a result of hafting.

68

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

In favour of the interpretation provided is the following: – the unequal presence of traces on both lateral edges: this is indeed typical for prehension, but here it is a consequence of the tool’s morphology: the left part is more protruding. In the case of a male hafting, only the most protruding parts enter into contact with the haft, in particular the ventral left medial zone and the dorsal ridge. This is exactly the zone in which the evidence is located. It appears that the misinterpretation of this tool could have been avoided. It was guided by preconceived ideas and all the evidence was not evaluated objectively. If the use motion had been inferred correctly, the presence of a haft would have been considered, given that tool size indicated drilling instead of perforation. A re-examination of the macroscopic wear– especially on the dorsal ridge – shows that a correct interpretation could have been possible. The initial macroscopic analysis was more correct and hafting was indeed suggested. BT 2 Experimental data. BT2 was used to drill schist for about 30 minutes. The tool was positioned with its ventral face against a juxtaposed wooden haft and fixed with bindings. Interpretation. Use: perforating schist (4); Prehensile mode: hafted with its ventral face against a juxtaposed wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings (4). Discussion. This tool was interpreted correctly on all levels. Although this tool was used on the same material as inferred for the previous tool, the previous interpretation was not reconsidered despite the certain attribution of these use-wear traces to schist working (Pl. 172) and their morphological distinctiveness from the use-wear traces on BT1. No problems proved to arise in interpreting haft wear. Already on a macroscopic level, the tool was clearly used hafted. A macroscopically visible light gloss was observed, mixed with striations. This wear pattern corresponds with that of exp. 14/10, used to drill schist and hafted in exactly the same way. It proves that contact with a wooden haft can theoretically be inferred, at least for perforating motions. Unlike in BT1, the haft is juxtaposed, which may be easier to infer, given the differences between the dorsal and ventral faces. In addition, the impact of tool morphology is more reduced. BT 3 Experimental data. The tool was used to scrape tanned leather for 30 minutes. It was mounted on a juxtaposed wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings. Interpretation. Use: scraping fresh wood (or ochred hide) (2); Prehensile mode: hafted with its ventral face against a juxtaposed wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings (4). Discussion. Use-wear on this tool was partially correctly interpreted. Two possible materials worked were provided, fresh wood and ochred hide, but wood was considered the more likely. The fact that the tool was used on leather explains the interpretative problem. Tanned leather is gen-

erally not worked (as it has reached a finished stage), hide in various stages is. It is, however, not an impossible task; it can occasionally be undertaken to soften the leather. In contrast to hide use-wear (without ochre), leather use-wear resembles that for wood (Pl. 173). There was no available experimental reference for comparisons and the resemblance between leather and wood use-wear was unknown. The prominent rounding cast doubts on a possible origin in wood-working as it is typical for hide, not wood. Re-examination of the use-wear traces on the scraper-head shows that the polish is indeed somewhat rougher than may be expected for wood and also slightly more intrusive. Further, it has a pitted instead of a domed appearance, and tiny grooves are present perpendicular to the edge instead of the gentler undulations of wood polish. When one does not know that both use traces resemble each other, it is difficult to tell the difference. If scarring had been used as an additional criterion, there might not have been confusion. After all, hide/leather working results in few scars in comparison to woodworking. Care should thus be taken with this kind of trace. The doubts and the proposal of a correct alternative support the view that correct interpretation is within reach. Elaborating the experimental reference for use-wear traces of all different stages in hide processing may help to avoid errors in the future. Hide processing is complex – as is abundantly illustrated ethnographically (Beyries and AudouinRouzeau 2002; Beyries and Rots 2008) – and a considerable internal trace variation is a logical result. The prehension mode of this tool was correctly inferred. The tool was indeed used hafted and mounted on a juxtaposed wooden haft. All other details of the hafting arrangement were exact. BT 4 Experimental data. BT4 was used to groove antler for 35 minutes. Leather bindings were attached round the hafted part. Interpretation. Use: grooving hard animal matter (bone or antler) (4); Prehensile mode: wrapped with leather bindings (2). Discussion. The tool was interpreted correctly, on the level of both use-wear (Pl. 174-175) and haft wear. This shows that a very basic arrangement can still be interpreted based on a thorough examination of the trace pattern. It further shows that friction does not need to be very intense to allow for interpretation. BT 5 Experimental data. BT5 was used to scrape schist for one hour. It was hafted in a male split wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings. Interpretation. Use: scraping schist (4); Prehensile mode: hand-held (4). Discussion. Use-wear was correctly interpreted (Pl. 176177). The tool was, however, not used in the hand, but hafted in a male split wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings (just as in the case of BT1). Already on a mac-

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

roscopic level supposedly clear evidence was observed for hand-held tool use. But there appear to be some contradictions in the notes made during analysis. While it was first stated that retouch striations were present on the ventral distal and medial right edges which were orientated obliquely or almost perpendicularly on the edge, others with a parallel orientation in the proximal zone were also linked to retouch (Pl. 178), but to a different mode. It is evident that the very regular retouch of the tool’s edges did not result from two different retouching modes. One should at least expect an abrupt change in the pattern. Therefore, it is impossible for the striations in the proximal zone to be attributed to retouching. On the contrary, hafting seems a likely cause. Given the conviction that this tool was handheld, retouching was the only plausible explanation. A second problem is the overlooking of the abrupt termination of surface polishing. A zone was identified in which the polishing gradually diminishes, but actually a line can also be seen where it stops and smoother and brighter polishing starts. This is exactly what can be expected from hafting; friction with particles of the material worked will gradually diminish towards the haft, where a boundary can be identified. It is clear that two important aspects were overlooked: the boundary which could be defined and the change in the characteristics of the polishing. The former is one of the most important criteria for distinguishing between prehension and hafting. It is an important interpretative mistake guided by the preconception – on a macroscopic level – that the tool was used hand-held. The interpretation was further led astray by its use on schist, since schist is the only material that accounts for clear macroscopic polishing, apart from, of course, a wooden haft. If these considerations are combined with the presence of bright spots (Pl. 179) and striations, no arguments remain for interpreting this tool as having been used in the hand. One issue remains: the polish on the ventral edges (Pl. 180) and the dorsal ridge (Pl. 181). The ventral polish clearly proves to be due to contact with a wooden haft and prehension polish rarely occurs on both ventral edges; it is generally concentrated on dorsal ridges. In this case, only very limited polish restricted to the outer ridge can be observed. This is typical for hafting, not for prehension. Furthermore, from the haft limit onwards, the polish differs in morphology: it is much better developed and it becomes intrusive. This abrupt change should have been taken into account. Re-examination of the trace pattern undoubtedly suggests hafting, and this tool could have been interpreted correctly if all experimental evidence had been taken into account. Indeed, there is experimental evidence available which demonstrates that macroscopic wood polishing can form. Even more importantly, an example was available which was used on schist (exp. 14/12). This misinterpretation again shows the influence of preconceived ideas and the importance of complying strictly with the distinctive criteria identified earlier. It is again a mistake which should be easy to avoid in the future. BT 6 Experimental data. BT6 was used to groove wood for one hour and 35 minutes. It was hafted with its dorsal face

69

against a juxtaposed wooden haft and fixed with leather bindings. Interpretation. Use: grooving wood (4); Prehensile mode: hafted with its dorsal face against a juxtaposed antler haft, the ventral face was covered with a leather wrapping and then fixed with vegetal bindings (3). Discussion. Tool use was interpreted correctly (Pl. 182). The hafting arrangement was correct apart from two aspects: the haft material and the haft limit. The wrong interpretation of the haft limit is a consequence of the placement of the thumb distal of the hafting arrangement, due to which polish was produced on the dorsal ridge which caused confusion. The limit identified on the edges is correct (Pl. 183). This limit was identified on the ridge as a clear change in polish characteristics, but, due to more polish distally, it was concluded that the limit must have been located there. This mistake can be avoided when one knows that one needs to rely on the evidence of the edges to identify the haft limit; the ridge limit may be blurred by the placement of the finger distal of the haft. There was no surface or edge polishing in the area to confirm the haft limit location, but this was attributed to a lack of contact with the haft. Since the irregular dorsal face was in contact with the haft, it was indeed not so surprising that the left medial tool part did not make any contact with it. On the ventral face, more evidence was available. Potential direct contact with vegetal bindings was observed in the medial zone, as a change in polish morphology occurred. The polish observed was indeed vegetal in nature, but should have been attributed to wood, not to vegetal bindings. The limit which was identified on the ventral face for the leather contact is correct. It is also associated with some striations on the ventral right edge. The correct determination of the haft limit would have been possible if the difference in trace characteristics had been appreciated, as well as the limit identified on the edges, and the ventral evidence. Thanks to this test, potential problems involved in identifying the haft limit were highlighted, and now such mistakes can be avoided. The identification of the haft material was mainly guided by the presence of numerous striations. These striations were, however, due not to antler contact, but to contact with an anvil during retouching. This possibility was considered, but finally rejected. During the analysis, reference was made to a trait which is in fact typical for contact with a wooden haft: striations parallel to the ridge and situated just next to it (Pl. 184). Based on the experimental reference, this was observed only in the case of wood. The polish morphology itself is not very distinctive. Re-examination confirmed that the polish is in fact bright spot-like in nature and easy to confuse with that for hard animal matter. More attention should have been paid to the presence of these parallel striations. If the numerous striations had been correctly attributed to anvil contact, the remaining traces would definitely have been attributed to wood contact. There are some characteristics which allow a distinction to be drawn between wood and hard animal matter (e.g., intrusive in lower parts, parallel striations), but it is an issue which seems problematic: the wood used

70

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

in hafting is hard and dried, so its impact on the stone tool is comparable to that of hard animal matter. More experience may however provide useful criteria to distinguish between the two. One other minor mistake of little importance concerns the fixation method: it was interpreted as a leather wrapping fixed with vegetal bindings. On a microscopic level, this does not really differ much from leather bindings, so in a sense the interpretation can be considered correct. It was mainly guided by the smoother traces in the medial zone, which were in fact due to wood. If the haft limit had been identified more proximally, this mistake would not have been made. Several interesting points were highlighted thanks to this tool. While it seems easy to adapt the haft limit identification, an improvement in haft material identifications appears to be more difficult for now, although not impossible. Several traits were proposed which can help the distinction between wood and hard animal matter and the second blind test will demonstrate whether these are truly effective. BT 7 Experimental data. The tool was used to scrape hide positioned on a piece of wood for one hour and 15 minutes. It was hafted in an antler male split haft and fixed with leather bindings. Interpretation. Use: scraping hide positioned on piece of wood (4); Prehensile mode: hafted in a wooden male split haft and fixed with leather bindings (4). Discussion. While the interpretation of the use of this tool is entirely correct (including the presence of wood) (Pl. 185), two mistakes were made concerning the hafting mode. These mistakes highlight the same problems as for the previous tool: the haft material was interpreted wrong (wood instead of antler) and the haft limit was situated too far distally. This could have been avoided if the haft material had been determined correctly. At several instances, smooth and bright polish was observed which was difficult to interpret because hafting in wood was assumed. It was of course due to antler. Re-examination questions why it was interpreted as being caused by wood, as the traces on the right side of the central dorsal ridge, for instance, are quite typical for an antler haft (Pl. 186). They are less characteristic on the left side, given the abundant side ridges which cause polish distribution over prominent points and less apparent characteristics (Pl. 187). Probably, both sides of all ridges were not examined. Another cause may have been the presence of macroscopic polishing, without microscopically visible bright spots, which occurs frequently (but not necessarily) in the case of an antler haft. The haft material could potentially have been interpreted correctly. The polish has a slightly rougher morphology than expected for wood. The identification of the haft limit is more difficult to correct, at least based on the ridge polish. Re-examination showed that the polish indeed does not have a clear limit; its morphology and distribution change, but not in a very obvious way. The evidence on the edges

proves to be more reliable: a zone was identified on the ventral and dorsal edges (and even on the lower ridges) where hafting polish starts, and this corresponds to the true limit (Pl. 188). On the dorsal left edge and the left side ridge the polish is furthermore associated with bright spots. Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that the limit on this tool is very difficult to define, even on the edges. The user’s left hand was most likely positioned on the stone tool where it caused quite intense polishing and scarring which obscured the haft limit. BT 8 Experimental data. The tool was used to groove bone for one hour and a half. The tool was hafted with its ventral face against a juxtaposed wooden haft. The dorsal face was wrapped before the bindings were attached. Interpretation. Use: grooving hard animal matter (bone or antler) (3); Prehensile mode: hafted with its dorsal face against a juxtaposed bone haft and fixed with leather bindings (3). Discussion. The use of this tool was inferred correctly: the tool was indeed used to groove bone. It was also used hafted, but not exactly in the way that was inferred. It was inferred correctly that the tool was mounted on a juxtaposed haft and fixed with leather bindings, but it was wrong to interpret the haft material as bone instead of wood and to think that the dorsal face was mounted against the haft. This mistake appears to have been guided by the lateral fracture. In order to explain this fracture, the haft contact had to be dorsal on a narrow haft. In reality, the fracture probably resulted from knapping; unfortunately, the experimenters did not notice it. If the fracture cause had been correctly assessed, a dorsal haft contact would never have been inferred, as the scarring on the edges is limited, even almost non-existent. It was also unexpected that the distal fractures were produced by knapping (together with the proximal ones). Prejudice concerning the nature of the hafting traces following the presence of the fracture probably triggered the mistake. There were indeed problems to explain some polished zones within the proposed hafting method, but the fracture was considered to be a more important criterion. Close examination of all fracture types is essential in order to prevent such mistakes being made in the future. The haft limit was again located too far distally, but, as discussed, such mistakes can be avoided. 3.8.1.3 Conclusion The two most important mistakes (BT1 and BT5) rest on the same principle. Both tools had been used in a male wooden haft. Another male haft was used (BT7) and inferred correctly, but this haft was made out of antler (which was interpreted as wood). It shows that it is not the haft type itself, but the combination with a specific haft material, in particular wood, which may be responsible for the confusion. Confusion between wood and antler is, however, understandable, given the very hard and dry wood used for hafting. The following explanation can be

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY?

proposed for misinterpretation of the haft type. As regularly observed, hafting against wood may cause clear polishing of the tool’s surface. In the case of juxtaposed hafts, this polishing occurs on one surface only, but in the case of male hafts, it may occur on both surfaces. Both tools in question, BT1 and BT5, were interpreted as schist working tools. Schist is the only material which causes similar macroscopic polishing. If the tools had not been interpreted as schist working tools, the mistake would not have been made. No other material worked accounts for this wear if the tool is hand-held and some form of fixation is necessary. The interpretation of the hafting and hafting arrangement could have been correctly inferred if the tools were used on – let’s say – bone. This is important when trying to improve the analytical results. In addition, the kind of polishing formed from both causes is very comparable and, on a macroscopic level, both are moderately dull. This problem was not realised beforehand; it was made obvious thanks to this blind test. Another problem which was highlighted thanks to this blind test was the positioning of the haft limit. In several cases, it was located too far distally. This is largely the result of basing oneself on ridge polish, which appeared to be unreliable, given the frequent placement of the finger distally of the haft. The haft limit can be more reliably inferred on the basis of evidence from the edges. Given the restriction to one main problem (schist polish) and two secondary problems (haft material and haft limit), it seems evident that improvement in the test results presented is possible. Currently, the test results are sufficient to justify an optimistic attitude regarding the possibilities of inferring hafting and the exact hafting arrangement on experimental and archaeological material. If the question concerning the interpretability of prehension and hafting traces is to be answered, a positive answer seems justified. Errors were definitely made, but most seem to be avoidable. The blind test provided essential information for improving the method and future blind test results. Additional blind tests will pinpoint the interpretation limits of prehensile wear. 3.8.2

What is the minimum use duration to allow interpretation? Despite the early analytical stage, it seems valid to reflect on the minimum use duration to allow the interpretation of prehensile wear. As demonstrated, distinctive traces can be produced as early as during the hafting process and use is thus not essential, in particular for male hafts. The minimum use duration thus depends on the tool use and the hafting arrangement, as both determine the amount of friction that occurs in the haft. Two estimates need to be made: one regarding the possibility of inferring that a tool was hafted; another on the interpretability of the hafting arrangement used. Such estimates can only be approximations. A blind test provides ideal data, but the minimum duration of the blind test presented was 30 minutes. It was nevertheless demonstrated that this was sufficient for a correct interpretation of both hafting and hafting arrange-

71

ment, in particular for juxtaposed arrangements. A distinction between hafted and hand-held tools seems possible even after limited use, definitely as soon as some wear is produced. This implies that hafting arrangements which do not favour hafting trace production (e.g., resinhafted tools) are more difficult to interpret after short use, while male-hafted tools may be identifiable after no or very short use. Generally speaking, use of about ten minutes should be sufficient to identify hafted and hand-held tools. Interpretation of the exact hafting arrangement is more complicated. It should be possible after use for about 10 minutes for arrangements allowing some friction (e.g., direct male). For other arrangements, use of 20-30 minutes is better. In general, use for over 30 minutes should allow certain interpretations of the hafting arrangement.

3.9

CONCLUSION: ARE PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES A REALITY?

1. Are prehension and hafting traces formed? The answer is a clear yes. Prehension and hafting traces exist. The most significant hafting wear consists of polish, scarring and bright spots. 2. At what stage are hafting traces formed? Two production stages could be identified. Some of the traces may be produced during the hafting process itself, depending on the hafting arrangement. Male arrangements proved to result in most traces during the hafting process. The majority of the traces, however, are formed during hafted use. 3. Can hafting wear be distinguished from wear produced by external factors? The answer is yes. Apart from production traces which are always associated with a specific technological feature, all traces induced by external factors share a varied presence all-over the stone tool. They are disorganised, which is in sharp contrast to the highly patterned hafting traces. A dominant feature of the hafting trace pattern is its strict limitation to one tool portion, situated opposite or next to the used edge, depending on the hafting arrangement. The patterned nature of hafting traces is fortunate. It allows one to use more “objective” criteria than in traditional usewear interpretations. The occurrence of a particular trace or trace association is of greatest importance, followed by its exact morphology. Use-wear interpretations are based on morphological criteria mainly, but also on associations between trace types. Thanks to the importance of trace patterning, hafting interpretations are also less dependent on good material preservation, since some traces (e.g., scarring) are interpretable on alterated tools. 4. Can hafting wear be distinguished from use-wear? A distinction between use and hafting traces proved very straightforward. Several use-wear traits could be proposed which are absent in the case of hafting traces and vice versa.

72

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

5. Can hafting wear be distinguished from other prehensile wear? The different forms of prehensile wear proved to be distinctive. While wrapping and hafting s.s. share some features (e.g., pattern), prehension traces are clearly different although they are present in the same tool part. The lack of a clear boundary between the active and non-active tool parts is just one of the most obvious criteria. Other criteria are: – Limited macroscopic evidence for prehension in contrast to often very explicit macroscopic hafting evidence. – The dominance of different trace attributes: for prehension, polish is dominant, scarring is somewhat less pronounced, while rounding, bright spots and striations are hardly present. In the case of hafting, polish and scarring are present in more or less equal amounts, and bright spots form an important additional criterion. – The trace pattern on both lateral edges is uneven in the case of prehension. There are generally two polish concentrations, but not at the same height on both edges. Hafted tools show a similar trace pattern on both edges (which allows one to determine the haft limit). Prehension traces also intrude a long way distally. – Use and prehension polish are consistent in nature; they are produced by the same contact material. This is not necessarily the case for hafting. – The surface and edge prehension polish can be similarly developed, given that friction with the hand is not necessarily different between the two zones. This contrasts with hafting; depending on the haft type, the polish development between the two regions is generally distinct and the surface polish is most often limited to faint polishing. – There is no strict relationship between the prehension polish distribution and edge morphology. While hafting polish is generally best developed on the most protruding points of the edge, there is no such relationship for prehension polish, since its distribution depends on the position of the hand. A very prominent zone can thus remain unpolished simply because there was no hand contact. For hafting such a scenario is difficult to imagine. It remains true however that the most prominent points still carry the best-developed prehension polish within the contact zone. One could state that prehension polish is more patch-like in nature, while hafting polish is more evenly present. – The wider the tool, the less developed the prehension

polish on the edges. This observation contrasts with the position for hafted tools. For practically every hafting arrangement, wide tools have more chance of pronounced edge wear due to the closer contact between tool and hafting material (depending on the haft width, of course). – Well-developed bulbar polishes may occur. In the case of hafting – especially when a knapping scar is present – traces are particularly located on bulbar ridges. Prehension polish may be better developed on bulbar ridges, but the polish also intrudes into lower zones, given the soft contact material. Hafting polish is generally induced by contact with a hard material (e.g., wood), or a soft material under tension. – Prehension scarring is more limited and scars are smaller and more evenly sized. – Typical hafting trace associations are absent in the case of prehension (e.g., scarring and bright spots). While both polish and scarring form, the most intense zones for each trace are located on opposite faces (e.g., ventral polish and dorsal scarring), unlike in hafting. 6. Does prehension wear create a recurrent pattern? Prehension wear proved to result in an extremely recurrent pattern. In several cases, the positioning, development and other characteristics of prehension wear proved to coincide. 7. Does hafting wear create a recurrent pattern? Hafting traces also proved to be recurrent, although there was a clear impact from tool morphology, retouch, and other aspects. If such factors are taken into account, the hafting trace pattern is indeed recurrent. It was established that polish and scarring form the most valid criteria for investigating recurrence and that some hafting arrangements lead to a more obvious recurrent trace pattern than others. Thus: 8. Are prehension and hafting traces interpretable? Prehension and hafting traces are indeed interpretable and a further investigation of their variability is justified. 9. What is the minimum use duration to allow interpretation? The minimal use duration varies depending on tool use and the hafting arrangement. A use duration of 30 minutes should generally be sufficient for a reliable interpretation.

4. PREHENSION TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLE: MATERIAL WORKED

Semenov once stated: “However hard the stone, traces of rubbing by the hand were usually left on it, if the tool was used without a handle. Friction of flint against skin, particularly when dusty and covered with sandy particles, gradually polished the surface.” (Semenov 1964: 14). He distinguished prehension polish from other polishes based on the lack of definition on the edges and the occurrence of a medium lustre on projecting points which dims in concavities. While prehension wear was partly dealt with in chapter 3, particular attention is devoted to the variable which determines the formation of prehension traces: the material being worked. Tools with differing uses are examined. While prehension wear may vary depending on the material being worked, the overall pattern should be consistent within each toolset. Several prehension wear characteristics have already been noted (see section 3.5.2.3): (1) its uneven distribution over both lateral edges, (2) the frequent occurrence of a general light gloss all over the tool, and (3) the correspondence between use and prehension polish. The number of particles which detach from the material being worked appears to be the key issue: these particles gradually cover the hands and the subsequent friction eventually causes prehension polish. The “dirtier” a material worked is, the more pronounced the prehension polish will be (as long as the hands are not cleaned intermittently). The selected tool uses are therefore representative for different stages of “dirtiness”: schist, bone, antler, pyrite are classified as “dirty” materials; wood is “moderately dirty”; while hide – when no abrasives are used – is “least dirty”. Since bone/ antler and woodworking tools were discussed in chapter 3, only tools used on schist, pyrite and hide are included here.

4.1

SCHIST WORKING

Eleven tools are included: three tools used for polishing, exp. 13/2, 13/3 and 13/12, five tools for scraping, exp. 12/13, 12/14, 12/15, 13/1 and 13/9, two tools for grooving, exp. 2/3 and 2/4, and finally one tool for perforating schist, exp. 12/1 (Table 1.2). Given the importance of use duration, well-developed prehension traces are expected on exp. 12/1, 12/13 and 12/14, which were used for several hours. When schist is worked in dry conditions, use polish is rough in morphology and associated with extensive rounding (Pl. 189-190). It is very similar to hide polish, though somewhat brighter. One should thus be careful not to confuse it with dry hide scraping use-wear polish (other use motions do not really pose problems). Aside from the polish reflexivity, the associated scarring and the internal polish

distribution differ from those in hide use-wear. Given that schist is harder, scarring is greater, and while both use polishes are intrusive, hide use polish is overall more evenly distributed over the used edge and the inner surface. Schist use polish has a better developed zone on the outer edge, with a clear impact on the edge, from where the polish gradually diminishes towards the inner surface. Striations in the sense of grooves can be present, but they are usually very small. When tools are used in the hand, the prehension polish is totally different for the two tool uses: it is very extensive for use on schist while being nearly absent for use on hide. Schist worked in wet conditions results in totally different use-wear. It is very smooth and bright and no confusion with other uses seems possible. On exp. 13/12, use traces (polishing) are slightly different as a result of raw material coarseness. The surface is not as smooth and less bright. This polish closely resembles that observed on archaeological artefacts (Rots 2002a). 4.1.1 Macroscopic analysis Macroscopic scarring is present only after extensive use, such as on exp. 12/1, 12/13 and 12/14. Limited scarring is observed on exp. 12/15. On tools which experienced extensive use a general light prehension gloss is present over the whole tool without concentrations. 4.1.2

Microscopic analysis

4.1.2.1 Polish The prehension polish morphology is comparable to that for use polish; it is equally rough and moderately bright. Rounding is frequently associated with it. The better developed prehension polish is, the more rounded the edge, the more it intrudes into the inner surface, and the more it is linked up. Prehension schist polish differs from use schist polish in extent and distribution: there is no real impact on the edge, it is present all over the non-active part, it intrudes far into the distal zone (no clear boundary), and its highest concentration is generally on the dorsal ridges and ventral surface (both non-functional zones except for polishing). On the perforating tool, exp. 12/1, prehension polish is present all over the tool, with a more or less continuous distribution. It is highly linked and interpretable. It is best developed in the zones where the hand exerts most pressure (ridges, ventral distal and medial surface). The polish is frequently associated with bright spots, sometimes with scarring and ridge rounding. Well-polished surfaces also show smoothing, defined as a kind of surface “polishing”. On the grooving tools, the prehension polish pattern

74

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

again corresponds with the position of the hand during use. On exp. 2/3, it is concentrated on the dorsal ridges and their adjacent surfaces, the ventral most proximal right edge, and the ventral surface. On exp. 2/4, the pattern is similar (i.e., ventral surface and dorsal proximal edges) but slightly obliterated due to the presence of cortex on the ridge. In contrast to the perforating tool, there is an additional edge concentration and less intense surface polish due to a slightly differing position of the hand. The extent of the polish is nicely correlated with the use duration: it is most extensive on exp. 12/1 (several hours), and least on exp. 2/4 (about 8 min.). Exp. 13/2, 13/3 and 13/12 were all used with one of their faces for polishing / smoothing schist. The opposite face shows hardly any identifiable prehension polish, aside from a few bright, isolated spots, poorly developed and not interpretable, or some minor polishing. This is a consequence of the gentle pressure required in this type of tool use. In addition, exp. 13/2 was worked in wet conditions and the schist, the tool and the hands were regularly cleaned with water. This strongly limits the number of schist particles intervening between hand and tool. The dorsal distal ridge of exp. 13/12 is an exception: it carries better-developed prehension polish following intense use of the bulb during which the distal part had to be held firmly. On the scraping tools, exp. 12/15, 13/1 and 13/9, the prehension polish is again more extensive and interpretable. The position of the hand during use can be reconstructed based on the location of the best-developed zones. On exp. 13/1, moderate to well developed prehension polish is located on the ventral medial and distal surfaces, especially towards the left edge, corresponding to the location of the thumb. On the dorsal tool surface, the pressure is distributed over several fingers and hardly any prehension polish was formed. The prehension polish consists of a general polishing with a few integrated better-developed spots. On the dorsal distal and medial surfaces of exp. 13/9, the prehension polish is identical to archaeological schist tools (Rots 2002a). Its dorsal distribution corresponds with the position of the thumb, while the ventral distribution corresponds with the position of the fingers. The latter is also associated with striations. Remarkably, these polishes were produced after only 6 minutes of use, in sharp contrast to the poor prehension wear on exp. 12/15, used for 35 minutes. This is because the hands were not cleaned during exp. 13. Scraping tools exp. 12/13 and 12/14 were both used for several hours and very well-developed prehension polishes can be observed (Pl. 191) in spite of the coarser nature of exp. 12/13. The best-developed zones are again concentrated on the ridges (Pl. 192) and, as with the other grooving and scraping tools, also on the edges. The surfaces show only general polishing. The polish is associated with smoothing or rounding and it intrudes far into the distal part without a boundary. 4.1.2.2 Scarring Scarring is rare and small; it consists mainly of featherterminating scalar scars or vertical nibbling retouch. It generally has an irregular and wide distribution along the edge,

but in limited zones corresponding with the position of the fingers it can be run-together. Most scarring is concentrated on the face opposite the edges which are in direct contact with the hand. On retouched edges, prehension scarring is difficult to distinguish, if it is formed at all. On exp. 12/13, the damage location on the dorsal proximal left edge corresponds with pressure exerted on the ventral edge. Damage consists of spots of irregular stepterminating scars with a rather wide distribution, mixed with spots of vertical nibbling retouch in a run-together pattern, eventually resulting in a continuous damage pattern. On the dorsal distal left edge of exp. 12/14, large feather-terminating elongated scalar scars are superposed by small vertical prehension scars, and occasionally small step-terminating scars. Their location corresponds to the position of the thumb on the ventral surface. On the dorsal right edge, small step-terminating irregular prehension scars superpose intentional retouch. When intentional retouch is lacking, small irregular and feather-terminating scars are formed. The intentional retouch further seems responsible for the run-together scarring pattern. Where retouch is absent, the distribution pattern is wide. 4.1.2.3 Bright spots Bright spots were formed on several tools. They are generally small, smooth and flat (Pl. 193), and they are always integrated in an extensive well-developed schist prehension polish, often combined with substantial rounding. On prominent points, they are occasionally intensely developed (Pl. 194). No associations with striations or scarring can be observed. Neither is there a clear limit in their distribution. Their pattern corresponds with the position of the hand during use. A few bright spots of a different nature were produced on exp. 12/14 and 12/15. They are rough in morphology, sometimes grooved. These spots are due to schist friction, most probably in a less developed stage than the previously described bright spots, as confirmed by their identical characteristics (e.g., integration within schist prehension polish). 4.1.2.4 Striations Striations are most frequent on the grooving and scraping tools. They are straight, smooth, and abrasive, with medium-sized width and parallel (cf. use motion) or varied (e.g., exp. 13/9) orientation to the edges. Striations are usually associated with polish and are situated in zones with direct hand contact. 4.1.2.5 Rounding and smoothing Rounding is far more frequent and extensive than was observed for hafting wear. It is concentrated in zones submitted to the highest pressure (i.e., hand), in association with well-developed polish (sometimes with bright spots). The better developed the polish (or bright spot), the more obvious the rounding. Surface smoothing also occurs regularly in association with well-developed prehension polish.

PREHENSION TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLE

4.2

FIRE MAKING

One way to make fire involves striking a piece of flint against pyrite or markasite and catching the sparks on a dry and flammable material. Given the mineral nature of pyrite and markasite, prehension traces can be abundant. Two experimental tools are included, exp. 12/17 and 12/18. Exp. 12/17 was used for about two hours in total, while exp. 12/18 was used for approximately 30 minutes (Table 1.2). 4.2.1 Macroscopic analysis Macroscopic prehension scarring is moderately intense on all edges. Intense macroscopic use gloss can be observed, but no prehension gloss. 4.2.2 Microscopic analysis The prehension polish compares to that produced when working schist, given the mineral nature of both. The polish is rough and moderately bright. It is very well developed over the whole non-active part, well linked and intrusive (Pl. 195). The polish distribution corresponds to the position of the hand during use: on exp. 12/17, the bestdeveloped and most extensive polish can be observed on the dorsal ridges (Pl. 196) and surface, the ventral medial surface, and the proximal part of the ventral medial right edge. The pattern on exp. 12/18 is similar, but the tool was held more proximally as witnessed by the positioning of the best-developed zones. On both tools the characteristic features of prehension polish are present, in particular its uneven distribution over both lateral edges and its all-round presence without a clear boundary. Prehension scars are abundant. Small, scalar and trapezoidal scars with feather and step terminations dominate. Initiations are not very characteristic; both wide and narrow initiations occur. Scars are generally distributed in a run-together pattern and the edge morphology played little role in the scarring pattern, which is typical for prehension. Bright spots are rare. Only on exp. 12/17 was one moderately sized bright spot observed. It is rough and flat and integrated in well-developed schist polish: it consists of a very well developed, abrasive polish spot. Two types of striations were formed: smooth, abrasive striations, always close and parallel to edges and ridges, and rough striations with variable orientations. The first type of striations are systematically located in areas where intense polish and rounding were formed, being the zones in direct contact with the hand. Intense friction with a pyrite or flint particle adhering to the finger accounts for their formation. The second type of striation is formed by more limited friction, most probably with a pyrite particle (given its morphology). Practically all prehension polish – in particular when well-developed – is associated with rounding or smoothing. Its distribution corresponds to the location of the bestdeveloped polishes.

4.3

75

HIDE WORKING

Hide working is not such a “dirty” activity. Two tools are included: exp. 12/6 (cutting) and 12/10 (scraping) (Table 1.2). 4.3.1 Macroscopic analysis No macroscopic prehension scars or gloss could be observed. 4.3.2 Microscopic analysis There is little polish formation, despite the lengthy use of each tool (about one hour). Generally, two kinds of (associated) polishes are formed. There is an overall light, rough polish, slightly brighter than a traditional hide polish. It seems to be a kind of mixture between hide and meat polish. Whether the hand itself or the hide worked is responsible is impossible to say, but it is likely that the hand in combination with grease and moisture is dominant in the formation process. Grit-influenced polish spots are associated with the polish. These spots are smoother and brighter than the general polish. No limit can be identified. Scarring is poor. The few scars are small and scalar, sometimes trapezoidal or sliced. Diffuse initiations and feather and step terminations dominate. The scars occur in a run-together pattern. A few small, smooth and flat bright spots were formed on exp. 12/6. They can be attributed to an intrusive flint (or grit) particle. They are located on prominent zones of the surface, where the hand was positioned, and they are associated with prehension polish. Striations were formed on both tools. In most cases, they can be attributed to intrusive grit particles. They vary in orientation and are always associated with prehension polish. A different type of striation occurred on exp. 12/10 only. It shows tiny grooves within the linear patch, and it seems to have been caused by direct contact with a finger. No rounding or smoothing was formed, probably due to the lack of abrasive particles.

4.4

CONCLUSION

The results confirm that the material being worked is the dominant factor in the formation of prehension traces. Use motion and tool morphology only influence the trace pattern as they influence how the tool was held. When hands are regularly cleaned during use little prehension polish is formed. The main characteristics of prehension wear can be summarised: – Polish is the dominant trace. When the material being worked is mineral in nature, extensive rounding is generally associated with it. – One kind of polish is spread all over the tool, with concentrations on the ridges and surfaces. The prehension polish distribution depends on how the tool was held, which is determined by the use motion: generally there is one concentration in the medial zone of one edge and the proximal zone of the other edge, resulting in uneven

76

–

–

–

–

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

distribution over both edges (contra hafting). Frequently, the two concentrations are location on different faces. There is no real limit between the active and non-active part. While one type of polish diminishes, another gradually starts. Given their morphological resemblance, it is difficult to tell where use-induced polish stops and prehension polish starts. The polish lacks a directional aspect and there is no real impact on the outer edge or ridge; the polish is immediately very intrusive into the inner surface. Scarring is limited. It consists mainly of small, superficial, run-together scalar or trapezoidal scars. Initiations and boundaries are generally diffuse. Both feather and step terminations occur. Well-developed prehension polish on the opposite face is often associated with it. Bright spots are rare. If they occur, they are generally well-developed spots integrated within an area of prehension polish.

– The number of striations varies. They are mainly abrasive, grit-induced striations. Their orientation depends on the use motion, and on the way the tool was held. Parallel orientations dominate overall. The striations are never isolated; they are associated with polish. In comparison to hafted tools, hand-held tools are highly flexible. The tool can easily be turned round in the hand depending on the location of potentially functional edges, and different portions of the tool can be used. When hafted, this kind of flexibility is lost as hafting promotes the use of one edge only, even though tools can be turned round in their hafts for additional use cycles. For tasks which are not demanding on the level of the morphology of a functional edge, prehension may have many advantages. Schist working is an obvious example: hafting would restrict the functionality of such tools (Rots 2002a).

5. HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I: USE MOTION AND MATERIAL WORKED

Several variables influence the formation of hafting traces. Dominant variables partially determine the process of hafting trace formation, while secondary variables merely cause some variations on an existing pattern. It is assumed that lack of understanding of dominant variables may result in misinterpretations, while this is not true for secondary variables even though their recognition may improve the ease and accuracy of interpretations. It is argued that the material worked and use motion, next to the hafting arrangement, are dominant variables in the process of hafting trace formation and that they may influence the interpretability of hafting traces. The influence of tool use on the process of hafting trace formation is examined and characterised and its consistency (or recurrence) under changing variables is evaluated. If the impact of the variable does not prove to be consistent, tool use may have to be disregarded as a dominant variable. If the influence proves to be very consistent and recognisable, tentative tool use interpretations may be possible for tools on which use-wear traces are not preserved (e.g. fracture, resharpening). In addition, the mere presence of hafting traces allows for better tool use percentages within an archaeological assemblage: some artefacts may have been discarded after a resharpening session which removed all use-wear evidence. The impact of tool use on general hafting trace interpretability is also examined. Data from the following tables are used: generalised trace data based on tables 4.1 (macroscopic scarring), 4.2 (macroscopic gloss) and 5.1 (microscopic traces), detailed data based on tables 6 (e.g., location of trace concentrations, trace characteristics). A general impression of the ID Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34

HT J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J

HM D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

TP LD LD LD LD LD T LD T T LD LD LD LD LD LD

Figure 5.1. Experimental details (based on table 1.1)

TD Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A Tr A A Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr

AP Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

trace intensity is first provided per tool part, and subsequently the trace characteristics are examined more closely.

5.1

INFLUENCE OF USE MOTION ON THE FORMATION PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES

First, the impact of use motion on the process of hafting trace formation is identified on the basis of a toolset with identical variables except use motion. Subsequently, it is investigated whether the identified impact remains identical when other dominant variables, i.e., the material worked, the hafting material, and the hafting arrangement, are changed. The results are finally extrapolated towards use motions which had not yet been taken into account. 5.1.1

Exploration and identification of use motion impact The selected experimental tools combine a particular material worked and hafting arrangement with different use motions. Woodworking and a juxtaposed wooden haft on which the tool is fixed with leather bindings provide sufficient experimental tools and allow the comparison of adzing, chiselling, grooving and scraping. Fifteen tools are examined (Fig. 5.1). While the hafting arrangement is identical, the face in contact with the haft may differ (Fig. 5.1). Different tool placements (TP), tool directions (TD) and orientations of the active part (AP) are included, but this does not result in a different hafting arrangement: it is only the haft morpholHaft Contact dorsal dorsal dorsal ventral ventral ventral dorsal ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral

Activity adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

H:min: sec 0:30:30 0:02:30 0:23:52 0:03:00 0:25:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 0:20:05 0:30:00 0:30:12 1:00:00 1:00:00 1:00:00 1:00:00 1:00:00

Tooltype scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper burin burin burin burin burin

78

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

ogy that differs. Bent hafts necessarily have a latero-distal tool placement and a transverse tool direction, etc., while the corresponding arrangement for a straight haft has a terminal tool placement and an axial tool direction (see chapter 2). Since adzing necessitates (or is largely facilitated by) a bent haft and chiselling necessitates a straight haft, different handle morphologies had to be included. Use durations ranged from a few minutes (due to a fracture) up to about one hour. Given the explorative nature of this investigation, all hafting wear traits which may be influenced by use motion are examined: trace intensity, trace pattern (i.e., positioning of best-developed traces), kinds of traces, etc.

scarring on exp. 10/5 is due to friction following the fracture in use. On grooving tools, macroscopic hafting scars occur in moderate numbers for unretouched edges, while they are largely absent on retouched edges. This again confirms that retouch influences the formation of macroscopic hafting scars in the case of moderate-pressure actions only (i.e., scraping and grooving). Hafting gloss was formed on all adzing and chiselling tools in differing degrees (Fig. 5.3). On exp. 1/2, it is limited (short use) and linked with the use fracture within the haft. Also on exp. 10/5 the gloss is linked with the fracture. Gloss was observed on all scraping tools, very faint on exp. 10/29 and more extensive on exp. 10/25 and 10/38. On the grooving tools gloss formation is limited (exp. 22/30, 22/31, 22/33 only). Consequently, gloss intensity and location appear to be largely independent of use motion.

5.1.1.1 Macroscopic analysis All adzing and chiselling tools regularly show macroscopic hafting scars round the haft limit (or crushing for ridges) (Table 3.5), independently of the presence of retouch. On scraping and grooving tools, such scars were formed only on unretouched edges (exp. 10/29, 22/31, 10/5). This suggests that retouch counteracts the formation of hafting scars round the haft limit on tools used in moderate-pressure actions only. The hafting scarring intensity on the edges appears to depend on the use motion (i.e., exerted pressure). Macroscopic hafting scarring is very intense on all adzing and chiselling tools except exp. 1/9 which was used for only 3 minutes (fracture) (Fig. 5.2). Retouch does not have an impact: scars occur on all edges, dorsal as well as ventral (excluding exp. 1/9). On scraping tools, macroscopic hafting scars are clearly less frequent; the unretouched hafted edges of exp. 10/38 even lack macroscopic scarring. The hafting scarring intensity thus proves to vary independently of the presence of retouch. The moderate amount of

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

DPedge

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34

DPridge

Action

Polish On a general level (Fig. 5.4), there are no major differences in polish intensity. For all use motions, at least some tools show well-developed hafting polish. Also the general polish pattern does not show marked tendencies. Trends are least visible for adzing tools. The pattern is obscured because some tools had a dorsal haft contact (exp. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/4) which resulted in a polish concentration on the dorsal face, while others had a ventral haft contact, resulting in more prominent polish formation on the ventral face. The scraping tools show a more distinctive polish pattern. The dorsal haft contact of one tool only (exp. 10/5) did not really influence the pattern. Two main (opposing) concentrations are observed: one on the dorsal ridges and

DPbutt

Exp. ID

5.1.1.2 Microscopic analysis

clear limit

0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 3 3 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

0 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 2 0 1 0

2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

both both both both 0 both both 0 both 0 dorsal both 0 dorsal 0

Figure 5.2. Macroscopic scarring intensity (scale of 1=low to 4=extensive) (Abbreviations: see chapter 2 or annex II; grey values correspond to relative intensity)

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VPsurf

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VPedge

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VPbulb

DPsurf

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VPbutt

DPedge

adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

DMsurf

DPridge

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34

DMedge

Action

79

DMridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

clear limit

0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 2 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 both ventral both 0 both both both ventral 0 0 0 0 0

Exp. ID

Use

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Figure 5.3. Macroscopic gloss intensity (on scale of 1 to 4)

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34

adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0

2 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 1

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

2 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 3 0 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 4 2

1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1

1 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1

0 0 0 2 2 3 0 3 2 2 1 0 1 0 0

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0

1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2

1 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

clear limit fracture both both both 0 both both both both both both both both both dorsal both

1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.4. Polish intensity per tool part (on scale of 1 to 4; italic = short use)

one in the most proximal zones (both dorsal and ventral). On the grooving tools the best-developed polish proves to be located in the medial zone, with some intrusion towards the proximal zone. A more detailed study of the polish pattern, including polish extent and development, confirms the tendencies described (based on tables 6). The number of times a certain development and extent category occurs is counted per tool part and compared with the polish development stage. On the basis of these data, polish concentrations are identified. Given the overall lesser development of hafting polish in comparison to use-wear polish, a concentration is

considered to be present as soon as the number of times the tool part shows moderate to extensive development (subtotal 2 on fig. 5.5) is higher than the number of times it shows poor development (subtotal 1 on fig. 5.5). The results are approximations. On adzing tools, there are four prominent and three additional concentrations (Fig. 5.5). The distinction between the two is based on the division of the total number of tool parts by the subtotal 2. If the result is less than 1.5 (arbitrarily defined), the concentration is defined as prominent. The most obvious concentrations are located on the butt, the bulb, the dorsal proximal ridge, and the dorsal medial surface (dark coloured cells for subtotal 2 on Fig. 5.5).

Subtotal 1

moderate

high

extensive

Subtotal 2 Subtotal 2 - low extension Total number of tool parts

1 3 1

1 2

1

VMsurf

VMedge

VPsurf

VPedge

VPbulb

VPbutt 4

1

1 1 2 4

DMsurf

DMridge

DMedge

1 3

0 2 7 8 10 11 41 42 51 52 2 11 12 42 43 52 6 9 53

2

DPsurf

poor

1 7 10 41 51

DPridge

Polish extension

DPedge

Polish development

DPbutt

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Butt

80

1 4

3

2

3

3 3

2 1

1

4

0 1

4 5

4

1 2 4 2

3

1 3

3

1

1

1 1 1

1

1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1

1 2 1

1 1 1

2 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

1 3 3 6

4 3 8

1 5 5 7

4 3 7

4 2 7

3 3 5

5 5 6

1 1 0 5

3 3 3

4 3 9

1 0 5

7 5 11

2 2 5

Figure 5.5. Number of trace IDs per polish development and extension category and per tool part

The additional concentrations are located on the dorsal medial ridge and edges and the ventral medial edges (lightcoloured cells for subtotal 2 on Fig. 5.5). For adzing tools, the dorsal proximal ridge consistently shows the best-developed and most extensive polish. The medial ridge polish is next. For the edges, the trend is the opposite: polish is best developed in the medial zone and diminishes in the proximal zone, but on the whole it is present continuously along the edges. The trace pattern is thus more or less V-shaped (excluding the surface polish). However, the data concerning the polish extension should be included as well. In fig. 5.5, polish concentrations are determined on the basis of polish development. If the polish extension data are included, poor polish extensions should be excluded from subtotal 2 (e.g., 7, 10, 41, 51, cf. annex I) and the moderate to extensive extensions from subtotal 1. Since the latter do not exist, only a re-evaluation of subtotal 2 is needed. If the new counts are considered, all prominent concentrations remain upright, while two additional concentrations, both located on the medial edges (dorsal and ventral), disappear. A triangular polish pattern is thus a

more accurate visualisation of the polish pattern in the case of adzing (excluding the surface polish) (Fig. 5.6).20 VENTRAL

DORSAL

ridge edge haft limit

Figure 5.6. Hafting polish pattern on adzing tools20 20

Concentrations are marked with ellipses, circles and shading. Prominent concentrations: solid line; additional concentrations: dotted line. For shading: prominent concentrations = dark.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

The pattern on the chiselling tool is similar. The polish is best developed on the ventral bulb – in fact in the whole of the most proximal zone – and other less prominent concentrations are observed on the proximal and medial edges. There is no real ridge concentration. Given that only one chiselling tool could be included, the consistency of the polish pattern cannot be examined. For the scraping tools the general polish pattern is confirmed (Table 6.10). There are two marked concentrations, one on the ridges and another one in the most proximal zone, and a minor concentration on the ventral medial surface. This pattern is independent of which face is in contact with the haft. It can be described as an inverted T (Fig. 5.7). Only on exp. 10/29 does the polish pattern differ, but this is a consequence of the very steep retouch present on the right edge: the retouch ridge thus absorbed the pressure which would otherwise be concentrated on the main ridge. 21

81

a minor concavity of the haft, allowing closer haft contact. In addition, the grooving tools were used for twice as long as the scraping tools. A minor loosening in the haft may have contributed to the polish formation. On the basis of these data, it seems justified to argue that use motion influences the hafting polish pattern, but not VENTRAL

DORSAL

ridge edge haft limit

Figure 5.8. Hafting polish pattern on grooving tools

ridge edge haft limit

Figure 5.7. Hafting polish pattern on scraping tools21

The general polish pattern is also confirmed for the grooving tools. A first concentration occurs in the whole medial zone, on the edges and ridges, and a second is located in the most proximal zone: on the ventral edges and in a limited way on the butt. This pattern is comparable to that observed on scraping tools. It can be described as a double T (a T with an inverted T in its prolongation) (Fig. 5.8). The edges of the grooving tools show better developed polish than those of scraping tools because the tools were inserted into

Polish development poor moderate high extensive

Adzing (5 tools) total nr nr per tool % 31 42 6 27 37 5 10 14 2 5 7 1

Chiselling (1 tool) total nr nr per tool 7 7 6 6 0 0 0 0

the polish morphology, distribution, development, linkage, extension, etc. This is illustrated by two examples: one for polish development (Fig. 5.9), and another for polish interpretability (Fig. 5.10). The figures are based on tables 6. The data show that polish development is not determined by use motion, even though extensive development occurs only on adzing tools (the counts per tool are added merely for visualisation purposes). Use motion does not really influence polish interpretability22 either, even though there is a minor tendency to a higher interpretability rate on tools used in high-pressure actions. Scarring The most obvious feature is the difference in scarring intensity between high pressure and moderate pressure tools. On all high-pressure tools scarring is very intense and it is present on all edges in varying degrees. On exp. 1/9, scarring is less extensive due to short use (Fig. 5.11). Another feature is the considerably damaged dorsal butt, no doubt a consequence of the high pressure exerted during use, which pressed the tool into the stopping ridge on the haft. On the scraping tools, scarring is also quite exten-

% 54 46 0 0

Scraping (4 tools) total nr nr per tool 25 6 17 4 5 1 0 0

% 53 36 11 0

Grooving (5 tools) total nr nr per tool 36 7 29 6 4 1 0 0

% 52 42 6 0

Figure 5.9. Hafting polish development: number of tool parts per category 21

The abstract figure depicts only the dorsal face, but it summarizes both faces.

22

The certainty level is evaluated as if the tool were an archaeological one: see chapter 2.

82

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Polish interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty very high certainty

Adzing (5 tools) nr per total nr tool 14 3 10 2 16 3 15 3 18 4

% 19 14 22 21 25

Chiselling (1 tool) nr per % total nr tool 3 23 3 4 31 4 2 15 2 4 31 4 0 0 0

Scraping (4 tools) nr per % total nr tool 3 6 1 13 28 3 17 36 4 9 19 2 5 11 1

Grooving (5 tools) nr per % total nr tool 2 3 0 18 26 4 21 30 4 20 29 4 8 12 2

Exp. ID

Use

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Figure 5.10. Hafting polish interpretability: the total number of tool parts per interpretability level, the average number of tool parts per tool, and the percentage per category (to prevent a distortion based on the number of tools included per use motion)

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34

adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

4 4 4 2 3 2 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2 0 1 3 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

2 4 4 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

short clear use -10 fracture limit min both both both both both both both both both both both both 0 0 dorsal

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.11. Hafting scarring intensity per tool part

sive but it is restricted to fewer tool parts. The grooving tools show hardly any scarring. Consequently, use motion appears to have a distinct influence on scarring intensity, which confirms the macroscopic observations.

ridge edge haft limit

When the exact location of the best-developed scarring is examined, fractures need to be included, as exemplified by exp. 1/2. This tool exhibits a double fracture: one at the haft limit, another within the haft. The latter fracture is associated with intense scarring and abrasion as one tool part slipped over the other under significant pressure (see fig. 7.11). The fracture on exp. 1/9 did not result in significant scarring because it occurred at the haft limit.

Figure 5.12. Hafting scarring pattern on adzing tools

The scarring pattern shows two scar concentrations on adzing tools, one on the medial edges and another on the dorsal butt (Fig. 5.12). While scarring also occurs on the proximal edges, it is systematically less intense than in the medial zone. This pattern confirms the V-shaped polish pattern: instead of the proximal ridge, the dorsal butt forms the proximal concentration. Interestingly, edge scarring is systematically most intense on the face in contact with the haft. For exp. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/4, this is the dorsal face, for exp.

1/9 and 1/10 this is the ventral face. The same principle was observed for polish. The proposed scarring pattern is most obvious on exp. 1/1, 1/4 and 1/10, in other words, on tools which were used for a sufficient time. The early use fracture of both the other adzing tools prevented the development of an equally explicit scarring pattern even though the same tendencies are observed (e.g., intense dorsal butt damage).

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

The impact of retouch is remarkable, even on tools used in high-pressure actions. While the presence of retouch does not influence the general pattern, it does influence whether scarring occurs bifacially or on one face only. On exp. 1/1, for instance, retouch is present on the dorsal right and ventral left edges, while the scars occur systematically on the opposite face (dorsal left and ventral right). By contrast, on the unretouched hafted edges of exp. 1/4, scarring was formed on both faces. This can be explained in two ways: either retouch counteracted scar formation by strengthening the edge, or scars were less visible on retouched edges, in particular when retouch was coarse. Both factors are intertwined, but an underestimation of the scarring intensity of retouched edges cannot be ruled out since scars were inventoried only when a cause could be identified with certainty. As mentioned earlier, scarring was most intense on the face in contact with the haft. This might seem surprising, as scarring visible on one face results from pressure on the opposite face. The data imply that it is not the haft contact, but pressure from the bindings which causes scarring. However, other factors need to be taken into account as well. A dorsal haft contact makes edges more fragile than in the opposite case. Dorsal transverse tool convexity is determined by the presence of ridges and the dorsal face is never straight. When the dorsal face is in contact with a straight haft surface, there is always space between the edges and the haft. The edge is thus not supported and pressure on the ventral face can easily cause scarring. When the ventral face is in contact with the haft, the situation is different. The ventral face is almost a plane, leaving little space between edges and haft. The haft thus supports the edges and protects them against scarring. While scar concentrations occurred on the ventral face, they were generally less intense than dorsal ones. Their presence is explained by an additional factor: protrusion of the edges from the haft. When edges protrude from the haft, it cannot support them against scarring. This is what happened for exp. 1/9 and 1/10. Although exp. 1/9 was used for a very short time, the medial zone protruded from the haft, which allowed scar formation in that area. In the case of exp. 1/10, all edges protruded from the haft. The chiselling tool shows a scar concentration on at least one of the medial edges (bifacial) and scarring is most intense on the ventral face, corresponding to ventral haft contact. More tools need to be included to enable a discussion of scar patterns. The scraping tools show far less scarring, except in cases of dorsal haft contact for reasons described above (e.g., exp. 10/5). On most tools, scarring is systematically more intense on the ventral face, corresponding to ventral haft contact. Some concentration can be observed in the medial (left) zone. This is largely the result of its protrusion from the haft. On the grooving tools scarring is even more limited. There is some concentration in the medial zone and it is less prominent in the most proximal zone, but no distinct pattern can be ascertained. Retouch appears to have a particularly important impact. Only on unretouched hafted

83

edges could a reasonable amount of scarring be observed. On retouched tools, scarring was restricted to small zones with hardly any or no retouch (e.g., the most proximal extremity of an edge on exp. 22/32 and 22/33), or scarring was absent (exp. 22/34). Use motion alone is not entirely responsible for the lack of scarring, as none of the tools protruded from their hafts and the edges were relatively well protected due to a concavity in the hafts in which the tools were placed. Consequently, use motion influences the scar pattern, but this is blurred by the impact of the presence of retouch and tool width with regard to haft width. Next, one needs to examine whether use motion influences the kinds of scars that are formed. This is examined quite extensively, given the high number of attributes involved. While scarring is overall most intense on tools used in highpressure actions, it also needs to be investigated whether more tool parts are involved. If the number of damaged tool parts is counted per tool, it provides a good estimation of the overall importance of scarring on an individual tool (Fig. 5.13). Zones which were damaged as a result of a fracture are excluded. About 8 to 9 zones are damaged in highpressure actions (adzing, chiselling). For scraping tools this reduces to about 6 to 7 zones, while in grooving only about 3 to 4 zones are damaged per tool. This confirms the influence of use motion on the amount of scarring formed. Adzing Chiselling Scraping Grooving Nr of damaged tool parts

41

9

27

18

Nr of tools

5

1

4

5

Average of damaged tool parts per tool

8

9

7

4

Figure 5.13. Number of damaged tool parts per use motion

If this information is combined with the scarring intensity per tool part, there are no marked differences between use motions (Fig. 5.14). Figures are provided for the total and average (purely informative) number of (hafted) tool parts which show a certain amount of scarring, with a percentage per category of scarring intensity. Scarring intensities differ, independently of use motion. In fact, hardly damaged tool parts are dominant – excluding the chiselling tool – but extensively damaged tool parts occur on adzing and scraping tools only (the one chiselling tool is not really representative). It seems that use motion does not really determine the scarring intensity per tool part; it only influences the number of tool parts involved. The number of tool parts in which a certain scar morphology occurred is counted (Fig. 5.15). No real differences can be noted. Scalar scars are predominant overall and next come trapezoidal scars. Only on adzing tools do crushing and sliced scars become more important than trapezoidal scars. Both scar morphologies are, however, also present on the other tools in more or less comparable amounts. In all but one case, the crushing recorded for adzing tools is

84

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Adzing (5 tools) nr per total nr tool low 18 4 moderate 12 2 high 7 1 extensive 4 1 Total nr of tool parts 41 8 Scarring intensity

% 44 29 17 10

Chiselling (1 tool) nr per % total nr tool 1 11 1 6 67 6 2 22 2 0 0 0 9 9

Scraping (4 tools) nr per % total nr tool 11 41 3 7 26 2 3 11 1 6 22 2 27 7

Grooving (5 tools) nr per % total nr tool 7 39 1 6 33 1 5 28 1 0 0 0 18 4

Figure 5.14. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category and per use motion

Scar morphology scalar trapezoidal triangular rectangular irregular sliced nibbling crushing

Adzing (5 tools) total nr nr per tool 26 5 5 1 4 1 2 0 4 1 7 1 4 1 9 2

% 43 8 7 3 7 11 7 15

Chiselling (1 tool) total nr nr per tool 8 8 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2

% 47 35 0 0 0 6 0 12

Scraping (4 tools) total nr nr per tool 21 5 8 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 7 2

% 51 20 0 0 7 5 0 17

Grooving (5 tools) total nr nr per tool 17 3 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0

% 53 28 3 0 0 9 0 6

% 0 48 2 30 5 16

Grooving (5 tools) total nr nr per tool 1 0 17 3 0 0 11 2 3 1 1 0

% 3 52 0 33 9 3

Figure 5.15. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category and per use motion

Scar termination snap feather hinge step vertical superposition

Adzing (5 tools) total nr nr per tool 7 1 21 4 10 2 16 3 5 1 9 2

% 10 31 15 24 7 13

Chiselling (1 tool) total nr nr per tool 0 0 6 6 1 1 7 7 1 1 4 4

% 0 32 5 37 5 21

Scraping (4 tools) total nr nr per tool 0 0 21 5 1 0 13 3 2 1 7 2

Figure 5.16. Number of tool parts per scar termination category and per use motion

butt crushing. In all the adzing tools included, at least the dorsal butt was crushed, in most cases the ventral butt, too (Table 6.1). The same goes for the chiselling tool (1 tool, 2 tool parts corresponding to the dorsal and ventral butts). Only for the grooving and scraping tools is there no consistent relationship between the occurrence of crushing and a specific tool part. Consequently, use motion determines whether the butt is crushed, but it does not really have any other effect on scar morphology. An important observation is the greater variety in scar morphologies on adzing tools, the exact significance of which will need to be examined. For scar initiation, sufficient data are available for the grooving tools only. Diffuse initiations seem to dominate (Tables 6) but, aside from that, use motion does not seem to have any real influence on scar initiation. This issue will have to be re-examined for tools for which the analytical data are complete. Feather-terminating scars are dominant followed by stepterminating ones (Fig. 5.16). Only on the chiselling tool is the opposite true. Again, there is no impact from use motion on the scar termination. Step and hinge terminations are

important only for tools used in high-pressure actions. Superposing scars are largely lacking in the case of grooving tools. One has to remember, however, that the grooving tools were hafted in a concavity of the haft, a factor which may have influenced the scarring process. For scar size and scar depth some impact from use motion can be noted (Fig. 5.17). Firstly, large scars are more frequent on adzing tools. Secondly, moderately deep scars tend to dominate on high-pressure tools at the expense of superficial scars. On moderate-pressure tools the situation is reversed. Yet, it needs to be stressed that for scar depth the image may be distorted by the lack of data for a number of tools, for the adzing tools in particular (Tables 6). Use motion may have a minor influence on scar definition and intrusiveness (Fig. 5.18). In most cases, scars are moderately defined and moderately intrusive, but well-defined and abrupt scars are more numerous on high-pressure tools than on moderate-pressure tools. On grooving tools, illdefined scars are important, but this is again linked with the hafting mode (i.e., within concavity).

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

tool parts

Adzing (5 tools) total nr nr per tool %

Scar size small medium large very large Scar depth superficial moderate deep

Chiselling (1 tool) total nr nr per tool %

Scraping (4 tools) total nr nr per tool %

85

Grooving (5 tools) total nr nr per tool %

22 22 20 4

4 4 4 1

32 32 29 6

7 8 1 1

7 8 1 1

41 47 6 6

18 19 3 3

5 5 1 1

42 44 7 7

17 9 2 2

3 2 0 0

57 30 7 7

9 10 1

2 2 0

45 50 5

4 8 0

4 8 0

33 67 0

16 6 0

4 2 0

73 27 0

14 9 1

3 2 0

58 38 4

Figure 5.17. Number of tool parts per scar size and depth category, and per use motion

tool parts Scar definition ill-defined medium-defined well-defined Scar intrusion intrusive moderate abrupt

Adzing (5 tools) total nr nr per tool %

Chiselling (1 tool) total nr nr per tool %

Scraping (4 tools) total nr nr per tool %

Grooving (5 tools) total nr nr per tool %

10 19 14

2 4 3

23 44 33

2 5 2

2 5 2

22 56 22

2 23 6

1 6 2

6 74 19

8 9 2

2 2 0

42 47 11

4 9 7

1 2 1

20 45 35

3 5 5

3 5 5

23 38 38

5 14 3

1 4 1

23 64 14

5 14 4

1 3 1

22 61 17

Figure 5.18. Number of tool parts per scar definition and intrusiveness category, and per use motion

Edge distribution no specific distribution (one scar only) even and run-together uneven and run-together uneven and wide continuous run-together and wide (uneven) run-together (uneven) and alternating run-together (uneven) and continuous run-together (uneven) in distinct patches

Adzing (5 tools) total nr per % nr tool 2 5 0 0 0 0 17 41 3 11 27 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 10 1 0 0 0 6 15 1

Chiselling (1 tool) total nr per % nr tool 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 56 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 3 33 3

Scraping (4 tools) total nr per % nr tool 1 4 0 4 15 1 10 37 3 8 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 11 3 1

Grooving (5 tools) total nr per % nr tool 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 50 2 5 28 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 17 1

Figure 5.19. Number of tool parts per distribution category and per use motion

Use motion does not appear to influence the distribution of scars along the edge within one tool part (Fig. 5.19). Uneven and run-together distributions dominate overall. It is interesting that continuous scarring occurs only on adzing tools, albeit in small numbers. Another observation to be examined more closely is that an even and run-together scar distribution occurs only on the scraping tools. To conclude, use motion mainly influences the overall scar pattern, like what was observed for polish. Its impact on the scar characteristics is minor, but generally high-pressure actions lead to more damaged tool parts and more prominent scars (i.e., larger, deeper, better-defined, etc.).

Bright spots Hafting bright spots are formed by flint (or haft material) particles which detach from the stone tool within the hafting arrangement and subsequently cause intense localised friction with the stone tool (being stuck within the arrangement) during further use (Rots 2002b). Therefore, it is to be expected that the occurrence and intensity of bright spots will be linked with scarring intensity, even though other variables may potentially have some influence as well (e.g., tool morphology). The microscopic data show that bright spots are rare on grooving tools (Fig. 5.20), no doubt as a result of limited scarring (see supra). By contrast, bright spots are numerous on most adzing (and chiselling) tools,

86

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

where scarring is extensive. Further evidence is provided by the adzing tool, exp. 1/9, which was used for only a short period because of a fracture: hardly any scarring occurred and bright spots are indeed absent. Exp. 1/2, which was also used for only a short time due to a fracture, presents a different case as an additional fracture occurred within the hafting arrangement, which resulted in significant friction and scarring, indeed associated with an extensive number of bright spots. The scraping tools sit between the two: a moderate amount of scarring is present as well as a moderate number of bright spots. Consequently, use motion appears to influence the formation of bright spots. In addition, bright spots tend to be concentrated round the boundary of the haft (on the stone tools) (cf. “clear limit” category in Fig. 5.20).

The bright spot pattern confirms the V-shaped pattern observed on adzing tools for polish (initially) and scarring. The first concentration is located on the medial edges and the second in the most proximal zone (ridge and surface). This confirms the influence of use motion on the bright spot pattern. The chiselling tool has to be excluded, given that there is only one tool. On the scraping tools, a clear concentration can be observed in the medial zone, more or less corresponding to the proposed inverted T polish (and scarring) pattern, but favouring the double-T pattern proposed for the grooving tools. This similarity in trace patterns for both use motions is not surprising, given that the pressure distribution over the tool during use is essentially the same; only the morphology of the used edge differs. The minor concentration on the proximal ridge subscribes to the original inverted–T pattern and to the double-T pattern. Other bright spots are somewhat dispersed over the proximal zone, with a minor concentration in the most proximal area, corresponding to the important scarring located there. The limited number of bright spots on the grooving tools does not really allow for any pattern recognition, but neither do they contradict the double-T pattern proposed for polish. The bright spots on the proximal edges are concentrated in the most proximal zone, which subscribes to the polish pattern. Consequently, the bright spot pattern appears to confirm the patterns recognised for polish and scarring. Bright spot characteristics do not show an obvious link with use motion. Aside from the fact that the best-developed and well-linked bright spots occur on adzing tools only (Fig. 5.21), there are not many trends to be observed. This is largely the result of the limited variability within the bright spot category. The main distinction that can be made is in the material responsible: hafting bright spots result either from intense friction with detached haft material particles, or from friction with detached flint particles. The

As far as their exact location is concerned, bright spots are concentrated on the dorsal face for adzing tools when the dorsal face made contact with the haft (exp. 1/1, 1/2, 1/4). The ones with ventral haft contact do not or hardly show bright spots (exp. 1/9, 1/10). This pattern was not observed on any of the other tools (i.e., use motions), and whether the pattern is truly consistent for adzing tools will need to be examined when more tools are included (see infra). Further, bright spots are frequently located on the surfaces, generally the surface close to the edge (Tables 6.1, 6.10, 6.22). This is because detached scar flakes move within the hafting arrangement. In many cases, bright spots are present on both the edge and adjacent surface, but the surface frequently shows the most extensive ones.

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

For a further investigation of the relationship between use motion and bright spot formation, all bright spots which resulted from a use fracture need to be excluded, despite the fact that the use motion may be responsible for the fracture. The issue of fractures is more thoroughly examined in chapter 8.

Exp. 1/1

adzing

1

2

2

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Exp. 1/2

adzing

3

0

0

2

4

1

4

0

0

0

4

4

4

0

both

1

1

Exp. 1/4

adzing

0

2

0

2

0

3

3

0

0

1

0

2

2

0

both

0

1

Exp. 1/9

adzing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Exp. 1/10

adzing

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exp. 10/2

chiselling

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exp. 10/5

Exp. ID

Use

short clear use -10 fracture limit min

scraping

2

1

0

2

1

1

3

0

2

1

2

1

0

0

dorsal

0

1

Exp. 10/25 scraping

2

3

0

3

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

dorsal

0

0

Exp. 10/29 scraping

0

0

1

0

0

2

2

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

both

0

0

Exp. 10/38 scraping

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

4

3

0

ventral

0

0

Exp. 22/30 grooving

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exp. 22/31 grooving

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exp. 22/32 grooving

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

both

0

0

Exp. 22/33 grooving

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Exp. 22/34 grooving

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Figure 5.20. Bright spot intensity per tool part (on scale of 1 to 4)

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

latter is more common. Therefore, the only link between bright spot characteristics and use motion is the tendency for bright spots to be more numerous and better developed on tools used in high-pressure motions, due to the increased amount of scarring.

frequent; they occur on both adzing and grooving tools, but there does not seem to be a consistent link with a specific use motion (Tables 6.1 and 6.22). No dominant striation locations were observed. The influence of use motion can be demonstrated only for the orientation of striations. Striations orientated parallel to the edge are dominant on adzing tools, while perpendicularly orientated striations tend to dominate on scraping tools (Fig. 5.23). The pattern is not really obvious for grooving tools, but most tool parts show an oblique orientation for striations. Given that the striation orientation does not seem to be determined by the tool part on which it is located (Tables 6), this implies that use motion indeed influences this attribute. No other relationships between a striation attribute and use motion could be established.

Striations Striations did not prove to be very characteristic of hafting (see chapter 3), which is confirmed here as few striations were observed (Fig. 5.22). Most of these are concentrated on the adzing tools. On the chiselling tool, most striations were caused by the fracture. Friction as a result of a fracture also explains the minor striation concentration on exp. 10/5. Such striations should be excluded here. Use motion thus appears to have some impact on the process of striation formation, but again there is a notable input from scarring intensity: the more a tool is damaged (e.g., exp. 1/4) the more striations are formed. This obviously relates to striations resulting from friction with a flint particle only. Other striations, such as those resulting from friction with the haft material, may also occur. Such striations are even less Bright spot development low moderate

high

Adzing (5 tools)

Bright spot linkage moderate

87

Rounding/smoothing Rounding also proved to be uncharacteristic of hafting. There is hardly any rounding on the tools examined and, if it occurs, it is dispersed over several tool parts and use

Chiselling (1 tool)

Scraping (4 tools)

Grooving (5 tools)

total nr

%

total nr

%

total nr

%

total nr

%

0

0

0

0

2

9

0

0 100

moderate

6

35

5

100

8

35

6

high

3

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

moderate

1

6

0

0

3

13

0

0

high

4

24

0

0

8

35

0

0

complete

0

0

0

0

2

9

0

0

high

1

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

complete

2

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total nr of tool parts

17

extensive

5

23

6

Exp. ID

Use

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Figure 5.21. Number of tool parts per development and linkage category and per use motion

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34

adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.22. Striation intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

short clear use -10 fracture limit min 0 ventral 0 0 0 0 both 0 0 0 0 dorsal 0 0 0

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

88

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Striation orientation parallel oblique perpendicular parallel & oblique parallel & perpendicular oblique & perpendicular Total nr of tool parts

Adzing (5 tools) total nr % 7 58 2 17 1 8

Scraping (4 tools) total nr % 1 20 0 0 2 40

Grooving (5 tools) total nr % 2 25 3 38 1 13

0

0

1

20

2

25

1

8

1

20

0

0

1

8

0

0

0

0

12

5

8

Figure 5.23. Number of tool parts per striation orientation category and per use motion

motion categories. Only a minor tendency towards more rounded zones on adzing tools can be distinguished. The rounding is poorly developed and it never occurs in isolation. It is always associated with polish (and scarring) or bright spots (Tables 6). The impact of use motion on the formation of hafting rounding is thus limited. 5.1.1.3 Conclusion The impact of the use-motion variable on the formation of hafting traces was explored with the aid of one toolset for which all variables were identical apart from the use motion. On a macroscopic level, scarring intensity increased together with the amount of pressure exerted during use, and was thus influenced by use motion. On a microscopic level, polish intensity did not prove to be determined by use motion, but the polish pattern over the hafted part was. Per use motion, specific areas of polish concentration could be proposed which proved to recur on tools used for the same use motion. The scarring evidence confirmed the same trends. Use motion proved to be a factor in the number of damaged tool parts, but not the overall scarring intensity per tool part. A particular scarring pattern per use motion could ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/4 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 19/1A Exp. 19/2A Exp. 19/5A

J J J J J J J J J J J J J

D D D D D D D D D D D D D

LD LD LD LD LD LD T T T T T T T

Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A A A A A A A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Figure 5.24. Experimental details (based on table 1.1)

Haft Contact ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral dorsal ventral ventral dorsal ventral

again be proposed. These proved to confirm the polish patterns. A minor impact on the scar characteristics could be identified. For bright spots, the impact of use motion was less obvious. The occurrence of scarring mainly determined their formation and bright spot intensity proved to be correlated with scarring intensity. However, the bright spot pattern confirmed the other trace patterns. Lastly, use motion proved to be a factor in striation intensity and orientation. The most significant result is that use motion proves to have a diagnostic impact on the hafting trace pattern. For tools used in moderate pressure actions, such as scraping and grooving, the trace pattern clearly showed opposition between the medial and most proximal parts, which was most obvious on the edges with better-developed zones around the haft limit and in the most proximal zone. On tools used in high-pressure actions, such as adzing, traces are more evenly distributed over the hafted part, in particular on the edges. Some concentration can nevertheless be observed near the butt and around the haft limit, but this does not include the edges. The concentrations and oppositions are thus located on different tool parts per use motion category. Consequently, it can be argued that use motion influences the process of hafting trace formation, but it does not impede trace interpretability. The identified impact on the hafting trace pattern may imply that the use mode of tools for which the used tool portion is not preserved could perhaps be interpreted on the basis of the hafting trace pattern. However, it first needs to be verified whether the influence of use motion is independent of other variables, in particular the material being worked, the hafting material and the hafting arrangement. 5.1.2

Systematic verification of use motion impact: material worked Whether or not the material being worked interferes with the identified influence of use motion on the process of hafting trace formation is verified. Per use motion category set out above, experimental tools which are used on different materials are examined. Given the moderate penActivity adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving scraping grooving

H:min: Material worked Tooltype sec 0:37:00 earth flake adze 0:30:00 earth flake adze 0:30:00 earth flake adze 0:07:00 earth flake adze 1:00:00 earth and grass flake adze 1:00:00 earth, stone, plants, roots scraper 0:20:00 schist scraper 0:35:00 wet snake hide scraper 1:10:00 fresh pig hide scraper 1:30:00 fresh sheep hide retouched blade 1:00:00 fresh cattle bone burin 1:00:00 fresh cattle bone scraper 1:00:00 dry deer antler burin

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

etrability of wood (see chapter 2), both more penetrable materials (e.g., earth) and less penetrable materials (e.g., bone, antler) are included. Of course, not every use motion is possible on each type of material. Thirteen tools are examined (Fig. 5.24).

most proximal zone and round the haft limit are not yet confirmed, but such a pattern was also not apparent on a generalised level for the wood adzing tools. A more detailed study confirms the concentration on the dorsal ridge: it forms the most prominent concentration on all tools (Fig. 5.26). No other prominent or even secondary concentrations are present. Overall, hafting traces are not well developed for this toolset and polish concentrations are less obvious. If data on the polish extension are included and if the number of traces involved is re-counted, the concentration on the dorsal proximal ridge disappears, but a new concentration appears on the ventral medial surface. This conforms to expectations. On the wood adzing tools, the main surface concentration was located on the dorsal face, but those tools also had a dorsal haft contact, while the earth adzing tools had a ventral haft contact. The lack of a most proximal concentration can be attributed to the lack of bulbs on all the tools examined. It also explains why the concentration on the proximal ridge is less marked. The polish pattern proposed for adzing tools is thus confirmed, even though polish is overall less developed than on wood adzing tools. This difference in development is to be attributed to the only variable which was altered: the material being worked (see section 5.2). It can nevertheless be argued that the impact of use motion on the hafting trace pattern is independent of the material worked.

The difficulty of this verification is that it partially highlights the potential influence of the material being worked on the process of hafting trace formation. The two variables are not entirely separable. Therefore, one has to be aware that potential differences between trace patterns may be a consequence of the material being worked instead of contradicting the identified impact of use motion. Only when the influence of the material being worked is known will the impact of both variables be truly apparent. 5.1.2.1 High-pressure use motions: adzing and chiselling For high-pressure use motions, comparative data need to be provided for both adzing and chiselling, while the hafting arrangement remains constant: a juxtaposed wooden haft on which the stone tool is fixed with leather bindings. Unfortunately, there are no comparative data available for chiselling. For adzing there are comparative data for one type of material worked: earth. Six experimental tools, exp. 4/1 up to 4/5 and exp. 9/2, were used in the described arrangement to work earth for variable periods. Tools with a similar period of use to the wood adzing tools are of course ideal: for three tools this is the case (exp. 4/1 up to 4/3). Two important remarks need to be made. Firstly, exp. 4/1 and exp. 4/4 were made out of coarse-grained flint, in contrast to the fine-grained flint of the first toolset, a fact which may have influenced the speed of hafting trace formation (see chapter 7). Secondly, the experimental tools included are overall more extensively and more coarsely retouched than in the first toolset, a fact which may have influenced scar formation. As the most obvious hafting evidence is visible only microscopically (mainly polish and scarring), macroscopic data are not treated. Polish distribution is expected to be in a pattern with a concentration on the medial edges and proximal ridge. On the basis of the general polish distribution (Fig. 5.25), there are two polish concentrations, both situated on the dorsal ridges. Apart from those, the polish is more dispersed over the hafted part. The expected concentrations in the

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/4 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2

The hafting scarring pattern conformed to the hafting polish pattern for wood adzing tools. It needs to be examined whether this is also true for earth adzing tools, while acknowledging that the presence of (bifacial) retouch – in particular coarse retouch – on many of the tools examined may (partially) disturb patterning. Data on scarring intensity per tool part (Fig. 5.27) show a concentration on the dorsal medial edges for all tools on which hafting-induced scarring could be distinguished from retouch. This corresponds to the wood adzing tools. A less prominent concentration is present on the dorsal proximal edges. Two of the tools with bifacial retouch also show intense hafting scarring on the ventral edges. The observation that the face in contact with the haft shows most intense scarring is not confirmed, but the comparative evidence is not entirely reliable as all earth adzing tools were hafted with their ventral face in contact with the haft. Nevertheless, in all cases in which a clear haft limit

DPbutt

Exp. ID

89

clear limit

1 1 2 9 0 0

1 1 3 2 3 1

1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 2 0 2 2

1 1 3 2 3 3

1 1 1 1 2 2

1 1 2 1 2 2

1 1 1 1 3 1

8 8 8 8 8 8

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 1 0 3 2

1 8 9 9 1 9

dorsal dorsal both dorsal both both

Figure 5.25. Polish intensity per hafted tool part (on scale from 1 to 4) (8= non-existent; 9= analysis is impossible)

short use 10 min 0 0 0 1 0 0

3

1

3 4

1 2

1

2 4 3

3 1 4 6

2 2 1

3

2 3 1

3 4

3 2

2

4 7

5 2 1

2

1 2

1 1

VPsurf

Subtotal 1 Subtotal 1 - moderate extension 2 8 10 11 moderate 41 51 52 11 12 high 43 52 extensive 9 Subtotal 2 Subtotal 2 - low extension Total number of tool parts

1 1 1

2 1

VPedge

3 3 1

VPbutt

VMsurf

VMedge

DPsurf

DPridge

DPedge

DPbutt

poor

1 7 8 10 51

DMsurf

Polish extension

DMedge

Polish development

DMridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Butt

90

1 1

2

1 4 1

1 1 4 4

3 5 9

6 5

1 3

4

1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 2

3 2 6

5 4 6

2 3 6

1 1 3

3 1 7

4 3 7

2 2 5

3 0 7

1 2 5 7

2 2 6

4 0 9

0 1 6

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Figure 5.26. Number of trace IDs per development and extension category and per tool part (codes: see annex I. polish extension; abbreviations: see chapter 2)

clear limit

Exp. 4/1

2

1

3

1

3

401

1

1

402

0

Exp. 4/2

403

0

403

0

403

403

402

403

8

0

0

Exp. 4/3

402

0

402

0

2

2

402

402

9

ventral

0

Exp. 4/4

402

0

2

0

3

3

3

2

9

0

1

Exp. 4/5

401

401

403

401

403

1

401

401

403

0

0

Exp. 9/2

0

0

403

0

403

401

401

401

9

ventral

0

Exp. ID

short use 10 min 0

Figure 5.27. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

can be identified on the basis of the scarring evidence, it is visible on the ventral face. The protrusion of the stone tool’s edges from the haft also needs to be taken into account. Exp. 4/3 and 4/4 protruded from their hafts, indeed resulting in more dispersed scarring over both faces on exp. 4/3 in comparison to that on the other tools. The proximal part of exp. 9/2 protruded from the haft, but this did not significantly influence the general scarring pattern. On a more detailed level (Table 6.9), however, scar visibility under low power clearly differs and proximal scarring is much more visible (thus more prominent) than scarring on the ventral medial edges, which confirms the influence of tool protrusion.

When data per tool part are examined (Fig. 5.28), a scar concentration appears on the edges and on the (dorsal) butt, which compares to the wood adzing tools despite the less prominent scar concentration on the dorsal butt. Again, the scarring on the medial edges is somewhat better developed than on the proximal edges, while the number of tool parts remains comparable. Therefore, the V-shaped scarring pattern described for wood adzing tools is confirmed, and this corroborates the identified impact of use motion on the scarring pattern. As with polish, the more penetrable material worked resulted in less pronounced hafting traces (see section 5.2).

VMedge 1

1

1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2

1 1

Striations were overall rare on wood adzing tools, and the same goes for earth adzing (Fig. 5.30). Parallel orientations again dominate (Fig. 5.31), but in a less striking way. The small number of perpendicular striations is important: oblique striations may be close to parallel, but perpendicular orientations are undoubtedly different. The more penetrable material worked may have reduced the predominance of parallel striations, but the trends identified on the wood adzing tools are confirmed. Striations are caused mainly by friction with a flint particle and wood contact.

1 1 2 1

1

1

1

1 1

3

3

6

1

4

1

2

5

6

Figure 5.28. Number of trace IDs per scarring intensity and interpretability category and per tool part (non-interpretable scarring is excluded)

No clear activity-induced patterns were distinguished for rounding. 5.1.2.2 Medium-pressure use motion: scraping Different materials worked are examined for scraping tools, such as hide in varied conditions, bone, and schist. All experimental tools were used for at least 20 minutes; most were used for an hour or more (Fig. 5.24). Polish evidence shows two main concentrations, one in the most proximal zone, and another round the haft limit (Fig. 5.32). This polish distribution perfectly corresponds to the double-T pattern and confirms the above propositions. The coarse inclusion on the left part of exp. 13/11 short use 10 min

BUTT

VPbulb

VPbutt

DMsurf

DMedge

DMridge

DPsurf

DPedge

DPridge

DPbutt

For bright spots, two features need to be investigated: whether they show V-shaped patterning and whether they are concentrated on the face in contact with the haft (Fig. 5.29). The bright spots present in the proximal zone are most often concentrated in the most proximal part (Tables 6.4 and 6.9), which provides one part of the V-shaped pattern. A second minor concentration is present round the exact haft limit. For wood adzing tools, this concentration was located mainly on the edges; here, surface concentrations are located in close proximity to edges. The minor

VMsurf

1

VMedge

1

VPsurf

VPedge

VPbutt

DMridge

DMedge

DPridge

DPedge

1 1

91

concentration on the ridges was not so marked on wood adzing tools. The same tendencies appear especially when the face in contact with the haft is taken into account. Most bright spots are situated on the ventral face, which was the face in contact with the haft. This confirms the similarity of the bright spot pattern between wood and earth adzing tools and seems to support the evidence that use motion influences bright spot patterning, no matter what material worked.

VPedge

low moderate low high certain moderate moderate high certain low high high certain high extensive certain Total number of tool parts

DPbutt

Intensity Interpretable

Butt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

clear limit

Exp. 4/1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

dorsal

0

Exp. 4/2

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

8

3

1

1

2

8

0

0

Exp. 4/3

0

0

3

1

3

3

1

0

8

2

2

1

1

9

both

0

Exp. 4/4

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

3

0

0

9

0

1

Exp. ID

Exp. 4/5

0

2

2

0

0

1

0

0

8

3

1

0

0

9

both

0

Exp. 9/2

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

8

1

3

0

3

9

0

0

short use 10 min 0 0 0 1 0 0

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/4 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.29. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

clear limit

0 201 0 9 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 201 0 401 0

0 0 401 0 201 0

0 401 402 0 401 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 402 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

8 8 8 8 8 8

201 401 0 0 201 0

0 0 403 0 0 402

201 201 401 0 201 0

0 401 402 0 0 401

0 8 9 9 9 9

0 0 both 0 both dorsal

Figure 5.30. Striation intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

92

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Striation orientation parallel oblique perpendicular parallel & oblique parallel & perpendicular TOTAL

Number of tool parts 5 4 2 2 1 14

% 36 29 14 14 7

Bright spots on wood scraping tools were relatively frequent, but here they are extremely rare (Table 5.1). Only on exp. 16/6 (unretouched hafted part) are they somewhat more frequent. Their location in the most proximal zone and around the haft limit confirms the double-T pattern of the wood scraping tools. In spite of the limited evidence, the influence of use motion on the hafting trace pattern previously identified is not contradicted.

Exp. ID

DPbutt DPridge DPedge DPsurf DMridge DMedge DMsurf VPbutt VPbulb VPedge VPsurf VMedge VMsurf BUTT

Figure 5.31. Number of tool parts per striation orientation category clear limit

Exp. 13/11 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 0

both

Exp. 16/6

3 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 1 2

both

Exp. 16/8

0 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 ventral

Exp. 16/17 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2

0

Exp. 19/2A 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

both

Figure 5.32. Polish intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

and its short use may explain the overall poor development of its hafting traces.

The evidence examined thus clearly confirms the previously identified trace patterns (i.e., the double-T trace pattern) and the identified impact of use motion on the hafting trace pattern. 5.1.2.3 Medium-pressure use motion: grooving Grooving is essentially the same use motion as scraping and the results are expected to be similar. Only two more tools fulfil the necessary conditions, one used on bone (exp. 19/1A) and one used on antler (exp. 19/5A). Both tools were used for approximately one hour (Fig. 5.24). The double-T polish pattern is again confirmed (Table 5.1): there is a concentration in the medial zone – round the haft limit – and a less prominent one in the most proximal zone. This also confirms the similarity of the trace patterns on scraping and grooving tools. Scarring is as poor as that on the wood grooving tools, but even less than that on the scraping tools (Table 5.1). It is important that the hafted parts of both tools were retouched (low coarseness), but only partially on exp. 19/1A (Table 3.3). There was no protrusion from the haft (Table 2 and 3.5). On the basis of these two grooving tools no real patterning can be observed, but the scarring is more extensive on exp. 19/5A than on exp. 19/1A. The reasons were discussed earlier (see chapter 3). An important observation is the similarity of the scarring pattern with that observed on scraping tools.

Exp. ID

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Bright spots are just as rare as on the wood grooving tools (Table 5.1) and the scraping tools dealt with in the previous paragraph. Their distribution corresponds with those on the scraping tools (i.e., identical concentration in the medial (haft limit) and most proximal zone). There are no

DPbutt

The scarring pattern does not really differ from that on the wood scraping tools (Fig. 5.33), aside from a dominant concentration on the dorsal medial edges. A less pronounced concentration is present on the dorsal proximal edges. Remarkably enough, the two tools which were mounted with their dorsal faces in contact with the haft, exp. 16/8 and 19/2A, lack almost any ventral scarring. This perfectly confirms the observations made on wood scraping tools. There is one important additional macroscopic feature. Hafting scars which mark the haft limit are observed only on the two tools used to scrape a hard material, exp. 13/11 and 19/2A, and this on both their faces (Table 3.5). On none of the other tools are such scars observed, a factor which suggests again that the hardness of the material being worked influences hafting trace intensity (see section 5.2). In addition, the hafted parts of exp. 13/11, 16/6 and 16/17 remained unretouched, but only exp. 13/11 did not protrude from the haft. Scarring is clearly more limited on the last in comparison to both the other tools, which confirms the impact of both variables on the scarring pattern (i.e., intensity). To conclude, the scarring pattern on the scraping tools examined reinforces the tendencies observed earlier. The evidence is more conclusive than for polish.

Striations are as infrequent as on wood scraping tools and, again, they have a predominantly perpendicular orientation (7/10) (Table 5.1). The previously identified influence of use motion on the formation of hafting striations on scraping tools is thus confirmed.

clear limit

Exp. 13/11 Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 19/2A

202 402 203 203 201

0 401 0 224 0

401 404 0 403 402

0 401 0 224 0

402 403 402 402 403

0 401 0 201 0

0 0 0 0 8

402 402 0 401 0

401 403 0 401 401

202 403 202 201 201

both both dorsal both ventral

Figure 5.33. Scarring intensity per tool part (on scale from 1 to 4)

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

striations on the two grooving tools, which compares with their rarity on the wood grooving tools (one tool part on exp. 22/30).

tant. All other tools were hafted with their ventral face against the haft. Three chiselling tools also lack their bulb, twice due to a knapping fracture (exp. 10/4 and 10/12), once due to a proximal fracture in the haft during use (exp. 10/17). This may have an influence on the polish distribution on the ventral face. The generalised polish pattern (Fig. 5.35) is very similar to that proposed for the first set of wood adzing and chiselling tools (Fig. 5.6). Polish is present over most of the hafted part in more or less equal amounts. If the zones with poorly developed polish are compared with those with a moderate to well-developed polish, there are five obvious concentrations (Fig. 5.36). These concentrations are situated on the dorsal ridges and the most proximal part: the butt (also ventral) and the bulb (in all cases where there is one). These concentrations nicely correspond to those identified for the other toolset. In addition, less obvious concentrations are observed on the dorsal edges. If data are re-evaluated by including polish extension, the concentration on the dorsal medial ridge becomes less obvious and two more concentrations on the ventral surface appear. Given the dominant ventral haft contact (the only exception is exp. 10/26) these additional concen-

5.1.3

Systematic verification of use motion impact: hafting material A second variable which needs to be investigated is the hafting material: does a different hafting material counteract the impact of use motion on the process of hafting trace formation? Two aspects need to be investigated: the bindings and the haft material. Therefore, experimental tools are included which were hafted with vegetal or wet leather bindings and tools which were mounted on an antler haft instead of a wooden haft (Fig. 5.34). The haft type (juxtaposed) and the material worked (wood) remain the same. 5.1.3.1 High-pressure use motions: adzing and chiselling One adzing tool and six chiselling tools were examined (Fig. 5.34). The distal part of exp. 10/26 was hafted, but the tool was inverted during the analysis, so in reality this has no influence on the recording of the traces. Only the absence of the bulb and the dorsal haft contact are impor-

ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 10/26 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/4 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/12 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/17 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39 Exp. 10/6 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 16/9

J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

LD T T T T T T LD LD LD LD LD LD T LD T

Tr A A A A A A Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A Tr A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pe Pe Pe Pe

93

Haft Binding Material Material 42 linen 42 leather 24 linen 24 linen 24 linen 24 wet leather 42 wet leather 42 leather 42 leather 42 leather 42 leather 42 leather 42 linen 24 wet leather 24 linen 24 linen

Haft Contact dorsal ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral dorsal ventral

Activity adzing chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving scraping scraping scraping scraping

H:min: sec 0:02:11 0:25:00 0:04:00 0:30:30 0:47:35 0:30:10 0:40:45 1:00:00 1:00:00 0:55:00 0:29:00 1:00:00 0:30:00 0:30:54 0:31:22 1:15:00

Tooltype scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper burin burin burin burin burin scraper scraper scraper scraper

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Figure 5.34. Experimental details (based on table 1.1)

Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/4 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/12 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/17 Exp. 10/26

402 401 402 401 401 0 402

401 403 402 202 401 402 403

402 402 401 401 401 402 402

401 401 401 401 401 401 401

402 402 402 401 402 402 402

401 402 401 401 401 402 0

401 402 401 401 401 0 401

401 402 402 402 401 402 402

403 8 402 8 402 8 8

401 401 401 401 401 402 402

401 401 401 402 402 402 402

401 401 401 401 401 402 401

401 401 402 403 402 401 0

404 both 401 both 8 both 403 ventral 402 both 403 both 8 both

Figure 5.35. Polish intensity per tool part

clear short use fracture limit -10 min 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 1 1 1

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

trations conform to expectations. For polish, the impact of use motion on the hafting trace pattern irrespective of the hafting material is thus confirmed.

Subtotal 1 Subtotal 1 - moderate extension 1 2 7 8 9 moderate 10 11 42 51 52 2 3 8 high 9 11 3 extensive 9 Subtotal 2 Subtotal 2 - low extension Total number of tool parts

1

1 1

3

1

3 3

3 3

1 2

3

3 2

3 3

1

2 1 1 3 1 1

5 3

VMsurf

VMedge 5

2 2

1 1 6 5

VPsurf

VPedge

VPbulb

1

4 2 1

VPbutt

DMsurf

2

DPsurf

1

DPridge

poor

1 7 8 10 11 51

DPedge

Polish extension

DPbutt

Polish development

Butt

The general scarring pattern (Fig. 5.37) shows that scarring is prominent on nearly all edges, on the dorsal proximal edges particularly. The most proximal part also shows intense scarring. The scarring is slightly more intense than

DMridge

on the reference toolset, but this can be attributed to the near absence of retouch: the hafted parts of exp. 10/4, 10/16 and 10/17 remained unretouched, and exp. 10/7 was only partially retouched. Tools with unretouched hafted parts indeed show the most prominent scarring; even exp. 10/4 which was used for only 4 minutes shows relatively extensive scarring.

DMedge

94

1 1 2 1

0 0

1

1

1 2

1

1

1

1

5 6

1 2 1

4 2

6 7

3 1

1 2

2 1

1 1

1 1 2

2

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

2 1 1

2 1 1

1

2

1

1 1 1

1 4 4 5

3 3 6

4 4 7

6 5 7

1 2 7

4 4 7

7 5 8

1 3 6

6 6 7

3 3 3

4 3 9

4 6 8

2 1 8

3 5 6

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Figure 5.36. Number of trace IDs per development and extension category and per tool part (Codes: see annex I. polish extension; in italics: extensions subtracted from one subtotal and added to the other)

clear limit

Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/4 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/12 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/17 Exp. 10/26

202 401 0 402 403 404 402

0 0 221 203 0 0 0

403 403 401 403 403 403 403

0 0 0 201 3433 0 402

403 401 402 403 403 402 0

0 0 403 403 401 403 401

401 402 403 401 403 403 401

401 402 403 401 402 403 402

0 321 8 0 201 344 8

0 both both 0 both both both

Figure 5.37. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

short use fracture -10 min 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 1 1 1

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

In contrast to that on the reference toolset, the main scar concentration (both in number of tool parts involved and intensity) is situated not on the medial edges, but on the dorsal proximal edges (Fig. 5.38). However, the difference in intensity on the medial edges is not important and should not be taken as an argument against the influence of use motion. On the contrary, the idea that the scarring concentration should be more intense in the medial zone should perhaps be revised since scarring appears to be present all along the edges on tools used in high-pressure activities. Whether a medial or proximal concentration dominates depends on the individual tool morphology; in none of the cases are differences between the medial and proximal zones significant. For the present toolset, part of the proximal scarring is concentrated in the most proximal zone, which conforms to the pattern of the reference toolset (i.e., concentration round the haft limit and near the butt).

concentrated on the face in contact with the haft (ventral). On exp. 10/16 and 10/17, such a correlation does not exist, but this is due to a use fracture, the friction of which caused numerous bright spots. As with the reference toolset, bright spots concentrate on the surfaces, often in proximity to the edges and ridges. The bright spot pattern thus nicely corresponds to the pattern expected. Striations are less frequent than on the reference tool set, and most striations are observed on the adzing tool (Fig. 5.40). Their orientation is unfortunately not predominantly parallel to the edges (3/10). If tool parts on which both parallel and oblique striations occur are examined, an equal number of tool parts shows parallel striations in contrast to perpendicular ones (i.e., 4/10). The identified impact of use motion on the striation orientation is thus incorrect or only partially so, with the hafting material exerting some influence as well. Detailed striation data (Table 6.10) show that the perpendicular striations recorded for the dorsal medial surface (of exp. 10/26) are those marking the haft limit. They are generally perpendicularly orientated. The perpendicular striations recorded for the dorsal proximal edge (of exp. 10/26) are associated with scarring and result from friction with a flint particle. Such striations are mainly perpendicular in orientation. For two other tool parts no acceptable explanation can be provided. This places the occurrence of “frequent” perpendicular striations in a different perspective and reduces the importance of this observation. In addition, the occurrence of oblique striations proves important as well, in particular for chiselling tools. During chiselling

Butt

DMedge

DMridge

DPbutt

DPedge

VMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

Bright spots are just as intense as on the reference toolset (Fig. 5.39). On the first four tools, bright spots are again Scarring intensity

0 0 1 0

1 6 4 1

0 1 1 0

1 2 1 2

1 3 8 3

2 4 1 3

1 2 2 1

3 6 5 2

1

12

2

6

15

10

6

16

low moderate high extensive Total number of tool parts

95

BUTT

0 0 402 0 401 0 0

VMsurf

401 0 0 0 402 0 402

0 0 0 0 0 401 401

401 0 0 402 404 403 402

404 0 8 402 0 402 8

both 0 0 ventral both both both

BUTT

VPbutt

0 0 0 0 402 403 0

VMedge

DMsurf

0 0 0 0 402 401 0

clear limit

402 8 402 8 0 8 8

401 401 0 0 0 404 0

404 0 0 403 403 403 0

VMsurf

DMedge

401 402 0 401 402 403 401

VPsurf

DMridge

0 0 0 0 402 403 0

VMedge

DPsurf

0 0 0 0 402 401 0

VPedge

DPedge

0 0 0 0 0 403 0

VPsurf

DPridge

Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/4 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/12 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/17 Exp. 10/26

clear limit

VPbulb

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.38. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category

short use fracture -10 min 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 0 0 401 402 0 0 212 202 0 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401 401 0 402 0

Figure 5.40. Striation intensity per hafted tool part

0 8 0 8 0 8 8

VPedge

VPbulb

VPbutt

DMsurf

DMedge

DMridge

DPsurf

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DPedge

Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/4 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/12 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/17 Exp. 10/26

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.39. Bright spot intensity per tool part

0 0 0 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 200

0 0 201 0 0 0 211 0 8 211 0 0 211 403 201 0 0 0 210 210 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

clear short use fracture differ -10 min 0 0 dorsal 0 both 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 1

0 1 0 0 1 1 1

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Exp. 10/6 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 16/9 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39

401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401

402 403 402 403 403 402 403 402 402

402 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401

0 401 401 402 401 401 402 401 402

401 402 402 403 402 402 403 402 401

401 401 402 401 402 401 401 401 401

401 0 401 402 401 0 402 401 402

402 401 0 0 401 0 401 401 402

402 401 401 402 402 401 8 402 403

401 401 401 401 402 0 402 401 401

401 402 401 401 401 0 401 401 0

401 0 402 401 402 0 401 401 0

401 0 401 402 402 0 401 401 401

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

96

clear limit

fracture

9 402 9 402 401 201 401 0 402

dorsal both dorsal both both dorsal both both both

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Figure 5.41. Polish intensity per tool part

the tool is regularly held more obliquely to the material being worked than in the case of adzing, a factor which accounts for these striations. The conclusion is that not too much importance should be attached to the relatively high number of perpendicular striations for this toolset. It is not (yet) a reliable argument for or against the identified impact of use motion on the hafting trace formation process. To conclude, the hafting material does not counteract the influence that use motion has on the hafting trace pattern. In several cases, the trace pattern was more comparable to that on the reference wood adzing and chiselling toolset than that in the previous section, aside from striations. Whether the hafting material has a diagnostic influence on the occurrence and orientation of striations will be examined in chapter 6. 5.1.3.2 Moderate-pressure use motions: scraping and grooving Nine tools were examined, four scraping tools and five grooving tools (Fig. 5.34). Scraping and grooving tools are dealt with together, since their respective hafting trace patterns are the same (see supra). Already on a generalised level there are a few clear polish concentrations (Fig. 5.41). The most important ones are located on the dorsal ridge, proximal in particular, but also medial. This perfectly conforms to the double-T pattern proposed for scraping and grooving tools. Other potential concentrations are less marked and demand more detailed investigation. An additional concentration on the bulb is expected. More detailed data reveal four evident and three additional concentrations (Fig. 5.42). The marked concentrations are on the dorsal proximal and medial ridges, but also on the butt and bulb (as expected; Pl. 197). These concentrations confirm the inverted T aspect of the proposed double-T polish pattern (Fig. 5.43). The additional concentrations are located on the dorsal medial and proximal surfaces and on the ventral butt. On other toolsets the surface polishes were generally less developed, but the concentration on the ventral butt is as expected. If the data are re-evaluated on the basis of the polish extension, there are only slight changes: some concentrations become somewhat less pronounced (on

the butt and bulb), while that on the ventral butt disappears. Given the clear medial concentration, the polish pattern is closest to the initial polish pattern proposed for the wood scraping tools (inverted T), which was changed into the double-T pattern for both scraping and grooving. It appears that both patterns occur, a fact which cannot yet be entirely explained. It is not caused by the tool protruding from the haft, as exp. 10/6, 16/9, 22/35, 22/36 and 22/39, and exp. 10/24 to a very limited extent, all protruded from their hafts. Nor is the difference morphologically-induced or a factor of the presence of retouch. The most persistent feature throughout all polish patterns on scraping and grooving tools remains the minimal occurrence of an inverted T polish pattern. The hafting material did not counteract the identified influence of use motion on the hafting trace pattern. The scarring pattern on the scraping and grooving tools was never very obvious. The generalised data show a concentration on the dorsal proximal edges (Fig. 5.44). While scars are present on other edges too, at least for scraping tools, there is not such a marked concentration. The scarring on the grooving tools is extremely limited overall. The scarring pattern does not differ much from that on the other scraping and grooving tools. The reference toolset for grooving shows equally poor scarring, and toolsets for scraping show a comparable amount of scarring to the case here. The tool part with the best concentration differs per group; for the wood scraping tools it was the ventral medial edge next to the dorsal edges, for the previous scraping toolset it was the dorsal medial edge next to the dorsal proximal edge. The unobtrusive nature of the scarring pattern thus persists, irrespective of the hafting material. Bright spots are extremely rare for this toolset, ruling out possible pattern recognition (Table 5.1). This corresponds to the previous toolset for scraping and the reference toolset for grooving. There are no arguments against the impact of use motion. Striations are also rare, but this is true for all scraping and grooving tools discussed in this chapter. No real patterning can be observed, nor is there a contradiction of the

Subtotal 1 Subtotal 1 - moderate extension 1 7 8 9 moderate 10 11 12 51 52 9 10 high 11 12 52 Subtotal 2 Subtotal 2 - low extension Total number of tool parts

0 2 1 1 3

1 1

1 7 9 1

3 6 6

0 0

4 4

1

1 2 2

2 3

3 2

2 2

2 4 2

2 4

1

1

1 3

4 1

1 5 8

2 1 1 1

1

1 2

3 1

VMsurf 3 1

2

1 2

97

VMedge

1 1

VPsurf

VPedge

VPbutt

1

2 2

1 1 1 3 7 7

VPbulb

1 4

3

DMsurf

DMridge

DMedge

1

DPsurf

3

DPridge

poor

1 7 8 10 11 41 51

DPedge

Polish extension

DPbutt

Polish development

Butt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

4 5 2 2

2 1

3 3 4 1

4 4 1 2

2

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 5 3 5

2 0 9

3 3 9

9 9 9

1 1 5 5 9

2 2 9

8 8 10

6 6 8

1 4 2 6

7 5 8

5 2 10

4 3 8

3 2 6

3 3 7

Figure 5.42. Number of trace IDs per development and extent category (Codes: see annex I. polish extension)

ridge edge haft limit

occurrence of perpendicular striations on the adzing tools, despite a minor link with the use of vegetal bindings. Such issues are explored in more detail in chapter 6. To conclude, the hafting material does not influence the identified impact of use motion on the hafting trace pattern for scraping and grooving tools. 5.1.4

Figure 5.43. Hafting polish pattern on scraping and grooving tools

identified impact of use motion. The striation orientations confirm the initially defined pattern: perpendicular striations are clearly dominant (6/10, cf. Tables 6). The impact of use motion on the striation orientation of scraping tools is thus independent of the hafting material used, which contrasts with observations on the adzing tools. There is no sound explanation yet, as no consistent relationship can be established between a particular hafting material and the

Systematic verification of use motion impact: hafting arrangement A last variable which may potentially disprove the identified impact of the use motion variable is the hafting arrangement used. All the previous tools were hafted on a juxtaposed haft and fixed with bindings. These results are contrasted with the use of a male or male split haft and the use of a wrapping or resin. Again, the hafting arrangement itself may have a certain influence on the process of hafting trace formation, which should not be ignored. Attention should thus be devoted to trace patterns only, corresponding to the identified impact of the use motion variable. Only a few additional aspects can be considered, such as striation orientation. Thirty tools were examined: five adzing tools, five chiselling tools, six scraping tools and 14 grooving tools (Fig. 5.45). The period of use ranges from 10 seconds up to

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

Exp. 10/6 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 16/9 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39

403 203 403 203 202 203 321 203 202

0 0 200 0 401 223 221 0 0

403 402 402 402 221 223 401 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 223 221 0 0

0 401 403 403 401 223 401 401 402

8 402 402 0 0 0 401 402 401

201 0 201 0 201 0 8 0 0

401 403 402 401 401 212 402 401 0

401 404 402 401 211 0 401 0 211

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

98

clear limit

fracture

403 201 401 201 0 201 321 202 202

0 both both both dorsal 0 ventral 0 dorsal

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Figure 5.44. Scarring intensity per tool part

ID Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 10/13 Exp. 10/15 Exp. 10/18 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 10/34 Exp. 10/21 Exp. 10/23 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/37 Exp. 10/39 Exp. 15/4 Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/41 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/45 Exp. 22/46 Exp. 22/47 Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/53

HT HM TP TD AP J J M J J M MS MS MS J J J J J MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

I I I I I D D D D D I I D D D D D D D D D I I I D D D I I I

LD LD LD LD LD T T T T T T LD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A A A A A A Tr A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Haft Haft Wrapping Bindings Fixation Contact Material wood leather leather 0 dorsal wood leather leather 0 dorsal antler leather 0 0 both wood wet leather wet leather 0 dorsal wood leather linen 0 dorsal antler 0 0 twigs dorsal wood 0 linen 0 both wood 0 linen wooden sticks both wood 0 leather wooden sticks both wood leather leather 0 ventral wood leather linen 0 ventral wood wet leather wet leather 0 ventral wood leather wet leather 0 ventral wood leather wet leather 0 ventral wood 0 linen 0 both wood 0 linen resin both wood 0 leather 0 both wood 0 leather 0 both wood 0 leather 0 both wood 0 leather 0 both wood 0 intestines 0 both wood 0 0 resin both wood 0 0 resin both wood 0 0 resin both antler 0 leather 0 both antler 0 leather 0 both antler 0 leather 0 both antler 0 0 resin both antler 0 0 resin both antler 0 0 resin both

Activity adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

H:min: Tooltype sec 0:20:14 scraper 0:39:25 scraper 0:50:00 scraper 0:30:09 scraper 0:14:34 scraper 0:32:42 scraper 0:04:42 scraper 0:40:12 scraper 0:30:38 scraper 0:24:47 scraper 0:30:25 scraper 0:30:34 scraper 0:30:04 scraper 0:42:00 scraper 0:50:00 scraper 1:00:00 scraper 1:00:00 burin 0:00:10 burin 0:58:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:02:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin 1:00:00 burin

Figure 5.45. Experimental details

one hour. Theoretically, only wooden hafts should be examined, but since the haft material did not have a demonstrable influence on the trace pattern (see section 5.1.3), these tools

can be included. All hafting arrangements are dealt with together, and the only subdivision concerns the amount of pressure exerted during use.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

BUTT

401 402 8 0 401 402 402 403 403 402

401 401 402 402 402 401 401 403 0 0

0 0 402 0 401 401 401 403 402 401

401 401 401 0 401 403 401 402 402 0

402 403 402 0 0 401 402 403 403 403

201 9 0 0 402 403 403 403 401 403

both ventral 0 0 0 both ventral both both both

VPbulb

VPedge

401 401 401 401 401 0 401 0 402 401

VMsurf

401 402 401 402 401 402 0 402 403 0

VPbutt

VPbutt

401 401 401 402 401 402 0 402 0 401

VMedge

DMsurf

402 402 401 401 0 402 221 403 401 401

DMsurf

DMedge

401 403 401 401 401 402 0 403 403 401

VPsurf

DMridge

401 401 401 403 401 402 0 401 401 401

DMridge

DPsurf

402 402 402 402 401 403 221 403 401 402

VPedge

DPedge

401 404 0 402 402 403 401 403 401 402

clear limit

DMedge

DPridge

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 10/13 Exp. 10/15 Exp. 10/18 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 10/34

obvious. Polish was present all over the hafted part without clear concentrations. The same is observed here (Fig. 5.46). Some concentration is present around the butt (also dorsal and bulb) for chiselling tools mainly. In addition, there is a concentration on the dorsal proximal ridge and another on VPbulb

Exp. ID

DPbutt

5.1.4.1 High-pressure use motions: adzing and chiselling Ten tools were examined, with a period of use ranging from 14 to 50 minutes. In all previous cases, the general polish pattern for adzing and chiselling tools was not very

99

4 1

2

1

short use fracture -10 min 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

moderate

high

1 1 2

extensive Subtotal 2 Subtotal 2 - low extension Total number of tool parts

3 3 7

2 1

1 2 1

1

1 1 1

5

2 1 3 1 2 6 1

1 3 1

4 1

VMsurf 1

1

3

VMedge 2

2

1 2 3 1 1

VPsurf

2

DPsurf

1

5

Subtotal 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 42 51 52 6 8 9 10 11 12 52 53 6

DPridge

poor

1 7 8 10 41 51

DPedge

Polish extension

DPbutt

Polish development

Butt

Figure 5.46. Polish intensity per tool part

1 6

1

2

1 3 1

5 1

2

1 1 1 5

1 4

1

1

3 1

1 2 2

1 1

2 1 2

2 1

1 1

1

2 1

1 1 1

1

1

1 3

1 1

1 2

1 1

1

1 1

6 6 6

1 7 5 9

3 2 10

10 10 12

7 6 12

4 2 10

5 4 8

6 6 9

2 1 8

7 7 9

6 3 9

6 5 8

4 3 9

8 8 9

Figure 5.47. Number of trace IDs per polish development and extension category and per tool part (in italic: subtracted from subtotal 2; Codes: see annex I. polish extension)

100

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

the ventral medial surface. When more detailed data are examined (Fig. 5.47), the exact concentrations can be identified. Distinct concentrations are observed in five zones: the butt, the dorsal butt, the dorsal proximal ridge, the ventral bulb and the ventral medial surface. Additional concentrations occur in five more zones: the dorsal proximal and medial surfaces, the dorsal medial ridge, the ventral proximal edge and surface. However, this identification takes only the polish development stage into account and polish extension data should be added. These subtract all zones with a poor extension (e.g., 7, 10, 41, 51) from subtotal 2 (i.e., the tool parts with a better-developed polish) and add them to subtotal 1 (i.e., zones with poorly-developed polish), while subtracting the poorly developed polishes which show a moderate to high extension from subtotal 1 and adding them to subtotal 2 (not relevant in this toolset). The concentration on the dorsal butt now becomes somewhat less obvious, while the (less marked) concentrations on the dorsal medial ridge, the dorsal proximal surface and the ventral proximal edge disappear. This re-evaluation permits a better image of the exact location of polish concentrations (Fig. 5.48). If surface polish is excluded (see supra), the concentration is triangular in nature, which conforms to the pattern defined on the reference set for wood adzing and chiselling tools. The influence of use motion on the polish pattern thus functions irrespective of the hafting arrangement used. VENTRAL

DORSAL

ridge edge haft limit

Exp. ID

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Bright spots are similar in frequency to those on the reference tool set. When the data of fig. 5.50 are combined with tables 6.1 and 6.10, two bright spot concentrations appear: one on the medial surfaces and another one in the most proximal zone (i.e., on the butt (including dorsal) and the bulb). On the edges, bright spots are concentrated on the ventral medial and dorsal proximal edges (especially towards the proximal part). Bright spot location and intensity are correlated with the occurrence and coarseness of retouch and thus scarring (Fig. 5.49). Bright spots are intense and widespread on unretouched tools (exp. 10/22, 10/13 and 10/18; Table 3.3), while they are restricted and less developed on coarsely retouched tools (exp. 1/6, 1/7, 1/11, 10/34). Exp. 10/15 was used for too little time and bright spots occur only on the heavily damaged butt. Exp. 10/33 was partially retouched, but given the rather extensive scarring this does not explain the few bright spots. The combination with an indirect hafting arrangement and high edge angles (Table 3.4) seems a more appropriate explanation. The only exception which cannot yet be accounted for is exp. 10/30 the hafted part of which remained unretouched. The most logical explanation may

DPbutt

Figure 5.48. Hafting polish pattern on adzing and chiselling tools

The scarring pattern shows distinct concentrations on the dorsal butt and butt, and on the dorsal medial edge (Fig. 5.49). In a less prominent way, scarring is also intense on other edges. This dispersed generalised pattern is typical for adzing tools. If the pattern is investigated in more detail, the most intense and best interpretable scarring is located on the butt and dorsal butt. While the dorsal medial edges are most often moderately to extensively damaged, the proximal edges are most often intensively damaged (high to extensive scarring). Despite these differences, the only valid conclusion is that all edges of adzing tools are damaged, often rather extensively. The few cases in which this is not so can be explained. Exp. 10/15 was used for too short a time (4 minutes) given the early fracture, but the fracture did cause extra damage to the ventral medial edges (Fig. 5.49). On exp. 1/6, 1/7, 1/11 and 10/34, scarring is more limited – in particular on the ventral edges – given the coarse retouch on all hafted edges (Table 3.3). The other tools remained unretouched, sometimes only partially (exp. 10/33).

clear limit

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 10/13 Exp. 10/15 Exp. 10/18 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 10/34

404 403 203 402 402 403 0 402 202 403

0 0 401 401 401 402 221 401 0 0

402 210 401 403 402 404 0 402 401 401

0 0 401 0 402 401 222 0 0 0

402 210 402 402 342 403 0 402 403 402

201 0 203 402 200 402 402 0 0 403

201 0 8 201 201 0 0 201 0 0

401 401 401 402 402 404 0 403 403 401

401 401 401 403 401 403 341 404 403 401

402 403 203 404 401 403 403 202 202 403

dorsal ventral both both 0 both ventral both both both

Figure 5.49. Scarring intensity per tool part

short use fracture -10 min 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

Exp. 1/6 0 Exp. 1/7 0 Exp. 1/11 0 Exp. 10/22 402 Exp. 10/33 0 Exp. 10/13 0 Exp. 10/15 403 Exp. 10/18 0 Exp. 10/30 0 Exp. 10/34 0

402 401 0 402 0 0 0 403 0 0

402 0 0 402 0 402 0 401 0 0

0 0 0 402 401 401 0 403 0 0

0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 401 0 402 0 0 0 0

401 402 401 403 0 0 0 401 0 0

0 0 0 402 0 401 0 402 0 0

201 0 8 403 0 402 402 403 0 0

402 0 0 403 401 401 0 402 401 401

0 0 402 402 0 0 0 401 0 0

402 0 401 403 0 403 0 402 0 0

401 0 0 403 0 401 0 402 0 0

0 ventral 404 0 0 0 401 both 0 0 403 both 403 0 0 ventral 401 0 0 0

Exp. ID

clear limit

101

short use fracture -10 min 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Exp. 10/21 Exp. 10/23 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/37 Exp. 10/39 Exp. 15/4 Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/41 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/45 Exp. 22/46 Exp. 22/47 Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/53

401 8 0 401 401 401 401 0 0 0 402 402 0 0 401 401 402 0 0 401

401 402 402 401 401 401 401 222 401 401 403 401 201 201 222 402 403 401 401 402

401 402 401 401 401 401 401 0 0 401 401 0 0 222 0 401 401 401 401 401

0 401 0 0 402 401 401 401 0 401 402 402 0 0 401 402 401 0 0 401

401 401 401 401 401 401 401 222 403 402 402 451 201 211 222 402 402 0 401 402

401 401 401 401 0 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 0 0 402 0 401 0 0 401

0 401 0 0 402 0 0 221 0 401 402 0 0 0 402 401 0 401 0 0

201 0 401 0 401 201 401 401 401 0 403 401 201 0 201 0 402 401 0 401

401 401 403 402 403 402 402 401 402 403 8 404 201 8 401 401 8 8 402 403

0 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 451 401 0 401 401 401 0 401 402

0 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 402 401 402 0 0 0 401 0 402 401 0 401

401 401 0 0 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 451 401 212 0 0 0 0 401 401

0 401 0 401 402 401 401 401 402 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.50. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part

clear limit

fracture

402 9 0 401 402 401 401 0 401 0 401 401 0 401 401 1 402 8 401 402

both both both both both both both ventral both both both both ventral 0 dorsal both both 0 both both

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.51. Polish intensity per hafted tool part

be the hafting arrangement. The tool was hafted in a male split haft, but, given its loose fixation, wooden sticks were inserted in order to strengthen it. This may have allowed flint particles to drop out of the haft without causing friction. The bright spot characteristics correspond to those of other adzing and chiselling toolsets. Striations are again rare, but their orientations are important. Parallel striations (11/24) should be dominant over perpendicular ones (6/24), and this indeed appears to be the case (see Tables 6). This implies that the striation evidence confirms the impact of use motion irrespective of the hafting arrangement used. Previously, the hafting

material appeared to counteract the dominance of parallel striations on adzing tools, but different hafting materials are examined here too, and now no negative impact can be discerned. Based on the experimental details (Fig. 5.45), the use of vegetal bindings may be the only adequate explanation. On the present toolset, vegetal bindings are rarely used, and if they are the contact with the tool is indirect or very limited (e.g., male split hafts). By contrast, vegetal bindings made a more frequent direct contact with the previous set of adzing tools. As was assumed earlier, those vegetal bindings may account for the differing orientations (see chapter 6).

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

5.1.4.2 Moderate-pressure use motions: scraping and grooving Twenty tools were examined: six scraping tools and 14 grooving tools (Fig. 5.45). The grooving tools (exp. 22) were partially dealt with in chapter 3, but attention is focussed on other aspects here. One particular polish concentration on the ventral bulb is already evident from the general polish pattern (Fig. 5.51). As with the reference toolset, this concentration is more prominent on scraping than on grooving tools. However, this is partly due to the absence of most bulbs on the grooving tools (e.g., 22/44, 22/47). An additional, less obvious concentration can be observed on the dorsal ridges (Pl. 198). This general distribution corresponds to the expected minimal occurrence of an inverted-T pattern. When the polish data are evaluated in more detail, an additional concentration on the butt appears next to the marked concentration on the bulb and dorsal proximal ridge (Fig. 5.52). This pattern changes slightly when data are re-evaluated on the basis of the polish extension. The concentration on the butt persists and that on the bulb increases, but the concentration on the proximal ridge is reduced. Instead a few additional concentrations appear on the dorsal proximal and medial surfaces and on the ventral medial surface. Given the dominance of male-type hafts

Subtotal 1 Subtotal 1 - moderate extension 1 2 7 8 moderate 9 10 11 51 52 8 9 11 high 12 51 52 Subtotal 2 Subtotal 2 - low extension Total number of tool parts

3

4 3 4

8 1

2

2 1 6 1

2 1

2

5

4 7 3

9

1

1

VMsurf

6

VMedge

5 1

VPsurf

3

VPedge

4 1

VPbutt

1

VPbulb

4

DMsurf

2

DMridge

DPridge

1

DMedge

DPedge

poor

1 2 7 8 10 11 51 52 81

DPbutt

Polish extension

Scarring is again more restricted than on high-pressure tools (Fig. 5.53 cf. Fig. 5.49). The absence of important butt damage is noteworthy, but it is due in part to extensive knapping damage which may have obliterated any potential hafting scarring. The scarring is again more intense on scraping tools than on grooving tools. Some influence of the haft type is visible in the scar distribution over the dorsal face compared to the ventral face. On tools with ventral haft contact (exp. 10/21, 10/23, 10/36 and 10/37), scarring is most extensive on the ventral face. All other tools were hafted in a male-type haft, resulting in a scar concentration on the dorsal face. The presence of retouch again influences the occurrence of scarring. The hafted parts of exp. 10/23, 10/39, 15/4, 22/40, 22/46, and 22/52 remained unretouched

Butt

Polish development

wherein both tool faces are in contact with the haft, these surface concentrations on both faces should not be surprising. They imply that the haft type has some impact on the surface polish pattern, even though most surface polish is concentrated round the ridges (most often) or near the edges (Tables 6.10, 6.15, 6.22). The inverted-T pattern is present, although it is not obvious on the basis of the figures provided. The impact of use motion on the polish pattern thus seems to be independent of the hafting arrangement.

DPsurf

102

3 3 9

1 1

5 6

6 8 1

13 15 1

3 10 1

7 5

1

1 5

12 14 1

8 11

1 4 3

3 2

7 8 1

18 22

10 9

14 16

6 4

2 2

1

1 2

1 5 1 2 1 1 1

1

1 1 1

4 4 1

1

2 1

3 1

1 3

2 4

5 2 2

1 1

2 1 2

3 1

1

2

1

1 8 7 13

5 3 11

5 3 18

15 8 18

6 8 13

4 2 16

8 5 16

4 5 8

13 14 16

1 4 3 11

6 2 24

5 6 15

3 1 17

3 5 9

Figure 5.52. Number of trace IDs per polish development and extension category and per tool part (in italics: subtracted from one subtotal and added to the other; Codes: see annex I. polish extension)

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

(Table 3.3) and the hafted parts of exp. 10/21, 22/45, 22/48 and 22/53 were partially retouched; all these tools show diagnostic hafting scarring (Pl. 199). Only the poor scarring of exp. 10/37 cannot be accounted for by retouch as its hafted part remained unretouched. Nor is the lack of tool protrusion from the haft a plausible explanation (see Table 2 and 3.4). The lack of scarring seems due to obtuse edge angles (and spine plane angles), which counteracted scar formation.

103

and the hafting material did not really influence this pattern. The handle type does not seem to be the cause either, as parallel striations are particularly dominant for the scraping tools, but none were recorded for the male-hafted ones. It may perhaps explain the parallel striation on the grooving tools; after all, a male haft may be expected to cause parallel striations as a result of friction from insertion and extraction under pressure. The only other remaining option is indirect contact between stone tool and handle, which needs to be examined more thoroughly (see chapter 6).

Bright spots are again rare (Pl. 200). The only tool with a significant number of bright spots is exp. 10/23 as a result of extensive scarring; indeed, all its bright spots are formed by the friction with flint particles in the haft (Table 6.10).

5.1.5 Extrapolation to other use motions Having demonstrated that material worked, hafting material and hafting arrangement do no counteract the identified impact of use motion in any significant way, the results can be extrapolated towards other yet unexplored use motions: drilling (i.e., mechanical) and perforating. Given that both use motions are comparable, few differences are expected on the level of hafting wear. However, use-wear differs: drilling results in very regular and evenly distributed usewear over both edges, often accompanied by many parallel striations (depending on the material being worked), while perforating use-wear is more unevenly distributed,

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Striations are also again rare. There are too few striations truly to derive from them preferential orientations, but parallel striations tend to dominate slightly next to oblique striations (Fig. 5.54). Consequently, the impact of use motion on striation orientation may be counteracted by the hafting arrangement used. Before, perpendicular striations proved to be associated quite consistently with scraping tools, and to some extent with grooving tools. The material worked

clear limit

Exp. 10/21 Exp. 10/23 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/37 Exp. 10/39 Exp. 15/4 Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/41 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/45 Exp. 22/46 Exp. 22/47 Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/53

202 8 203 202 202 202 202 203 203 202 321 0 203 322 203 203 0 0 401 203

0 403 0 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 0 0 202 0 223 0 0 0 0 401

402 401 401 401 403 402 402 0 0 0 0 402 401 401 402 401 0 0 0 403

0 402 0 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 401 0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0

402 402 401 0 402 402 403 0 0 0 0 412 402 211 401 401 0 0 402 403

0 401 0 0 0 201 0 201 0 0 233 201 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 0

0 201 0 202 201 0 203 0 201 0 8 0 203 8 0 0 8 8 0 0

403 404 401 0 401 402 401 0 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 403

402 403 402 401 402 403 402 401 0 0 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 0 402 402

203 9 201 201 201 0 201 201 201 203 322 203 202 323 201 202 0 8 401 202

both both both ventral both both both ventral 0 0 both both both 0 dorsal both ventral 0 both both

short use fracture -10 min 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.53. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

Striation orientation parallel oblique perpendicular parallel & perpendicular Total number of tool parts

Scraping Total number 3 2 1 1 7

Figure 5.54. Number of tool parts per striation orientation category

% 43 29 14 14

Grooving Total number 3 3 3 0 9

% 33 33 33 0

Total number

%

6 5 4 1 16

38 31 25 6

104

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

since the hand (through an intermediate haft) manipulates the tool. All available drilling and perforating tools which were hafted in a juxtaposed or male split arrangement are included here. Both arrangements are combined with bindings and can be considered to be more or less comparable. No selection is made on the basis of the nature of the bindings, but male hafted tools and tools hafted with the aid of resin are excluded. Given that the hafting arrangement appeared to counteract the striation orientation, only polish, scarring and bright spots are focussed upon. Thirteen tools are examined, 8 drilling tools and 5 perforating tools (Fig. 5.55). Materials worked differ, but they all have low penetrability.

consequence of the absence of a bulb. Exp. 22/3 does not show marked concentrations, which may be a consequence of the fresh intestines used to fix the tool, as this ensures a strong fixation without much friction. The drilling tools mounted in a male split haft do not show a marked polish pattern, probably because the pressure was more dissipated over both faces. The perforating tools show a concentration on the proximal ridge and polish tends to concentrate on the dorsal face. Given the general poor polish development, detailed analysis does not provide more data. Drilling and perforating were classified among the moderate-pressure activities (see chapter 2). The poorer development of hafting polish in comparison with high-pressure motions confirms this classification. For tools hafted in a juxtaposed arrangement, the polish development is more or less comparable to that of scraping and grooving tools. Male split arrangements may lead to fewer traces, but this still needs to be investigated (see chapter 6). A polish concentration on the dorsal proximal ridge is the most consis-

Polish patterns of the drilling tools hafted in a juxtaposed arrangement are highly similar, in particular exp. 14/10 and 22/2 and to a lesser extent exp. 14/12 (Fig. 5.56). They all have a polish concentration on the dorsal proximal ridge (Pl. 201) and the ventral surface (Pl. 202). The concentration on the ventral proximal surface of exp. 14/10 is a

ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 14/10 Exp. 14/12 Exp. 22/2 Exp. 22/3 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 14/3 Exp. 14/5 Exp. 22/13 Exp. 22/14 Exp. 22/15

J J J J MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

D D D D D D D D D D D D D

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

H:min: Material Haft Haft Tooltype Activity Bindings sec worked Contact Material wood leather ventral drilling 0:13:20 schist perforator wood leather ventral drilling 0:20:00 bone perforator wood wet leather ventral drilling 0:30:00 bone drillbit wood fresh intestines ventral drilling 0:15:00 bone drillbit wood leather both drilling 0:39:00 schist perforator wood leather both drilling 0:18:00 antler perforator wood (wet) leather both drilling 0:40:00 bone drillbit wood fresh intestines both drilling 0:15:00 bone drillbit wood leather both perforating 0:19:00 schist perforator wood leather both perforating 0:36:00 schist perforator wood leather both perforating 1:00:00 bone perforator wood fresh intestines both perforating 0:30:00 bone perforator wood wet leather both perforating 0:35:00 bone perforator

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Exp. 14/10 Exp. 14/12 Exp. 22/2 Exp. 22/3 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 14/3 Exp. 14/5 Exp. 22/13 Exp. 22/14 Exp. 22/15

401 0 401 0 401 401 402 0 0 0 0 401 401

402 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 402 401 402

401 401 402 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 401

401 401 401 401 401 402 0 401 401 0 401 402 402

401 0 403 401 401 0 401 402 401 401 401 212 401

0 401 403 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 402 0 401

401 401 401 401 401 0 0 401 0 0 401 402 0

401 401 403 0 401 0 201 201 0 0 401 401 401

8 402 403 8 8 401 402 402 401 401 8 401 401

401 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401

402 401 401 401 401 0 0 0 0 401 401 401 401

401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401

402 403 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 0

Figure 5.56. Polish intensity per hafted tool part

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.55. Experimental details

clear limit

fracture

401 401 8 8 401 401 201 0 401 201 0 402 401

ventral ventral both both both 0 both both 0 both both both both

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

Exp. 14/10 Exp. 14/12 Exp. 22/2 Exp. 22/3 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 14/3 Exp. 14/5 Exp. 22/13 Exp. 22/14 Exp. 22/15

0 403 402 322 0 203 202 203 203 202 0 203 203

401 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 222 0 0 0

401 401 401 402 402 202 401 0 402 402 402 401 401

0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 222 0

0 402 401 402 402 0 403 0 402 403 402 401 401

321 0 402 321 0 0 0 0 401 1 321 0 0

401 401 401 402 401 402 402 401 401 401 401 401 401

401 402 402 402 401 401 402 0 402 401 402 401 401

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPridge

ring is a consequence of the high pressure which is exerted on a tool’s edges in perforating and drilling motions. The polish concentration on the proximal ridge also conforms to such a pattern, as this protruding zone is pressed against the hafting material during the back and forth rotational movement.

DPbutt

tent feature for tools used in rotating motions. Scarring is omnipresent on all edges, irrespective of the presence of retouch (Fig. 5.57). This contrasts sharply with the scraping and grooving tools where retouch had a substantial negative influence on scar formation. Overall, scarring is moderately developed. The considerable edge scar-

105

clear limit

fracture

323 401 8 8 402 201 201 201 0 201 323 201 0

0 both both both both 0 both 0 both dorsal both both both

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.57. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

Trace attribute MACROSCOPIC Scarring Gloss MICROSCOPIC Polish * intensity * pattern Scarring * intensity * pattern * number of damaged tool parts * morphology * terminations * size & depth Bright spots * frequency * characteristics Striations * frequency * orientation Rounding OVERALL PATTERN * opposition

Adzing & Chiselling

USE MOTION Scraping & Grooving

Perforating & Drilling

intense

moderate insignificant

moderate

high triangular

moderate inverted or double T

moderate concentration on ridge

high V-shaped high larger variety step & hinge most important large & deep dominate

moderate inverted or double T moderate insignificant insignificant small & superficial dominate

high all edges high insignificant insignificant small & superficial dominate

high large, well-developed

low to moderate small, moderate development

low small, moderate development

high

moderate perpendicular (and oblique for grooving) dominates poor

moderate

parallel dominates slightly more intense no true opposition, especially not on edges; on other parts some concentration round haft limit and butt

Figure 5.58. Distinctive traits per use motion

haft limit versus most proximal; especially on edges

-

ridges versus edges

106

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Bright spots are extremely rare, except perhaps for tools hafted in a juxtaposed arrangement. They prove to be predominantly located on edges (Pl. 203) and ridges. This corresponds to the location of the other traces. In addition, the bright spots located on the edges are consistently formed by flint particles, while bright spots on ridges and surfaces are predominantly well-developed polish spots, thus formed by friction with the hafting material itself (Tables 6.14, 6.22). The bright spot evidence thus supports and further substantiates the evidence provided by the other trace types. 5.1.6 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria Use motion is argued to have a notable impact on the hafting trace pattern which is largely independent of other variables, such as the material being worked, hafting material and hafting arrangement. Only the hafting arrangement proved partly to counteract the previously identified impact of use motion on the striation orientation, but only on scraping and grooving tools. The results could be extrapolated towards rotating motions and a particular trace pattern was proposed. The particular impact of use motion on the process of hafting trace formation is summarised in fig. 5.58. Use motion does not influence the interpretability of hafting traces, despite the generally better development of hafting traces on tools used in highpressure motions.

5.2

INFLUENCE OF THE MATERIAL WORKED ON THE FORMATION PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES

The materials being worked were grouped into different categories on the basis of their penetrability / resistance (see chapter 2). A toolset with identical variables except the material worked is started with in order to identify and characterise the influence of the material being worked. Whether this impact is independent of other dominant variables, particularly use motion, hafting material and hafting arrangement, is examined later on. 5.2.1

Exploration and identification of the impact of the material worked A use motion is selected which is possible for different materials worked (e.g., grooving a soft material seems pointless), and a hafting arrangement is opted for which is well represented in the experimental reference collection. The hafting arrangement and material are the same as for the use motion study: a juxtaposed wooden haft on which the tool is fixed with leather bindings. Two toolsets are examined (Fig. 5.59). The first set consists of adzing tools, wood and earth adzing in particular, and contains 12 tools in total. The earth worked is humus-rich, loamy, loose, and easily penetrable, and relatively low pressure is exerted during use. The second toolset concerns wood and hide scraping tools, 8 tools in total. The period of use ranges from 2 minutes up to 2 hours. For two tools, a partial wrapping was used, but it did not prevent direct contact between stone tool and haft. Since both wrapping and bindings are of leather, no major influence is expected.

Partial Haft wrapping Contact

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 4/1 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/4 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2 Exp. 16/13 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8

J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD T T LD T T

Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A A Tr A A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 leather 0 0 0 0 0 0

dorsal dorsal dorsal ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral dorsal ventral ventral ventral ventral dorsal

adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping

Exp. 16/17

J

D

T

A

Pe

0

ventral

scraping 1:30:00

high

Exp. 16/18

J

D

T

A

Pe

leather

ventral

scraping 1:30:00

high

Figure 5.59. Experimental details (based on table 1.1)

Action

Relative Material H:min: penetrability worked sec of MW 0:30:30 moderate oak 0:02:30 moderate oak 0:23:52 moderate oak 0:03:00 moderate acacia 0:25:00 moderate acacia 0:37:00 high earth 0:30:00 high earth 0:30:00 high earth 0:07:00 high earth 1:00:00 high earth etc. 1:00:00 high earth etc. 2:00:00 high earth etc. 0:30:00 moderate oak 0:20:05 moderate oak 0:30:00 moderate oak 0:30:12 moderate oak 0:35:00 high wetted hide 1:10:00 high fresh hide

ID

Tooltype

scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper flake-adze flake-adze flake-adze flake-adze flake-adze scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper retouched fresh hide blade wetted hide scraper

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

5.2.1.1 Adzing tools

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Macroscopic analysis The macroscopic scarring shows marked differences for the number of damaged tool parts and the scarring intensity (Fig. 5.60). Wood adzing tools are damaged far more intensively than earth adzing tools. However, it has to be acknowledged that the presence and coarseness of retouch differ significantly between the two toolsets, being more frequent and coarser on earth adzing tools. This may have hindered hafting scar formation. Exp. 1/10 has the most comparable amount of retouch to earth adzing tools and scarring proves to be much more reduced. Nevertheless, it is present on all edges, while this is the case for only one earth adzing tool: exp. 4/5. This implies that the number of damaged tool parts still exceeds those of earth adzing tools despite the presence of retouch. Scarring intensity does not differ significantly. clear limit

0

403

0

403

0

402

0

2

both

Exp. 1/1

2

Exp. 1/2

2

Exp. 1/4

402

0

Exp. 1/9

401

Exp. 1/10

0

Exp. 4/1

344 403 341 404

0

402 343

0

both

0

both

403

0

404

0

401 403

0

0

0

342

0

401 342 402 both

0

402

0

402

0

401 401

0

0

212

0

212 402

Exp. 4/2

0

202

0

0

0

212

Exp. 4/3

202

0

211

0

1

2

Exp. 4/4

1

0

1

0

401 402 402

Exp. 4/5

0

0

402

0

401

0

Exp. 9/2

212

0

402

0

402

0

0

0

1

dorsal

Exp. 16/13 202

0

402

0

401

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

201

0

0

0

8

0

402 401 0

0

0

0

0

401 401 401 both

Figure 5.60. Macroscopic scarring intensity per tool part

The same principle goes for gloss formation: more tool parts show gloss formation in the case of wood adzing, and gloss is much more intense. Again there is an aside: two of the earth adzing tools were fabricated out of coarse-grained flint (exp. 4/1 and 4/4) but, surprisingly, it did not really affect gloss formation. Macroscopic gloss formation may thus be independent of the coarseness of the raw material. The poorer gloss formation did not impede the identification of a clear haft limit on earth adzing tools, but the interpretation is based on the sudden termination of a macroscopically visible use gloss (comparable to sickle gloss). The macroscopic data thus indicate that the trace intensity or the number of tool parts with macroscopic traces is influenced by the material worked. The higher the penetrability of the material being worked, the fewer traces are formed following the reduced pressure exerted on the tool as a whole and on the hafting arrangement in particular. As soon as traces occur, they show the pattern which was inferred for the use motion in question (see section 5.1). Microscopic analysis The generalised polish data do not show an obvious pattern despite the absence of extensively developed polishes

107

on the earth adzing tools. This changes when use duration is taken into account. If tools used for less than 10 minutes are excluded (exp. 1/2 and 4/4), polish proves to be moderately developed on most tool parts of wood adzing tools in contrast to that on earth adzing tools. Despite a use of about 30 minutes, exp. 4/1 and 4/2 still do not show well-developed polishes even though polish is present over the whole hafted tool part. Exp. 4/3 shows more extensive polish. The other earth adzing tools are all used extensively (i.e., over 1 hour), for twice the duration of most wood adzing tools, and only those tools show comparable hafting polish development to that of the wood adzing tools. The results for polish development and extent (Fig. 5.61) are clear-cut. Earth adzing tools clearly show the highest number of polished tool parts with poorly developed polish, while wood adzing tools dominate in the high and extensive development categories. Even if subtotals are re-evaluated

Polish development

Polish extension

poor

1 7 8 10 41 51

Subtotal 1 1 2 7 8 10 moderate 11 41 42 51 52 2 8 11 high 12 42 43 52 6 extensive 9 53 Subtotal 2 (moderate up to extensive) Subtotal 3 (high & extensive) Total number of tool parts

earth adzing wood adzing total total % % number number 8 11 7 8 14 12 13 9 10 0 9 0 22 4 20 3 0 3 0 2 7 12 6 9 55 60 31 41 1 1 1 1 2 7 2 5 1 1 1 1 7 9 6 7 12 1 11 1 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 0 4 0 3 2 7 2 5 2 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 4 2 3 2 4 2 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 1 3 0 1 0 1 37

40

44

59

8

9

15

20

92

75

Figure 5.61. Number of tool parts per polish development and extent category (Codes: see annex I. polish extension)

108

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

based on the extent of polish, results remain consistent and earth adzing tools still show the highest number of polished tool parts with poor hafting polish formation. Polish interpretability is lower for earth adzing tools as a result of poorer development (Fig. 5.62): earth adzing tools allow a firm interpretation of the polish on only 9% of the polished tool parts, while the polish on wood adzing tools can be interpreted with certainty in 27% of cases. In addition, hafting polish can be interpreted with only a low degree of certainty on most tool parts of the earth adzing tools, while the highest percentage of tool parts provides firm polish interpretations on wood adzing tools.

impeded and there are no diagnostic differences between the two toolsets. For a more detailed examination, scars associated with fractures in the haft or at the haft limit need to be excluded as well as scarring with an uncertain cause (e.g., due to coarse retouch). There are no marked differences for the scar intensity, as was predicted on the basis of the general data. Scar interpretability, however, differs (Fig. 5.64). The scarring on the majority of damaged tool parts of wood adzing tools can be interpreted with certainty (91%), while this is true for only 56% of the damaged tool parts on earth adzing tools. In addition, interpretations for all damage on wood adzing tools are very certain at least, while at least a part of the scarring on earth adzing tools can be interpreted with very little certainty. The hafting scarring is perhaps not much more intense on wood adzing tools, but it is definitely much more interpretable. There are no real differences for most other scar characteristics: morphology, termination, definition, intrusiveness, depth and distribution (Tables 6). The scar initiation was not recorded for all tools examined. Larger scar sizes tend to be more frequent on wood adzing tools than on earth adzing tools (Fig. 5.65). Small scar sizes clearly predominate on earth adzing tools.

Many problems were encountered when trying to distinguish potential hafting scarring from intentional, often coarse, retouch. Therefore, many scars were not attributed to a specific cause (Fig. 5.63). Comparisons are thus earth adzing total nr % uncertain 19 21 26 low certainty 24 moderate certainty 20 22 high certainty 21 23 certain 8 9 Total number of tool parts 92 Polish interpretability

wood adzing total nr % 14 19 10 13 16 21 15 20 20 27 75

The general bright spot distribution does not show differences between the two toolsets (Fig. 5.66). Most earth adzing tools were used for twice as long as the wood adzing tools, but earth adzing tools which were used less exten-

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Figure 5.62. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category

clear limit

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 4/1 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/4 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2 Exp. 16/13

403 404 404 402 403 2 403 402 402 401 0 403

0 401 401 0 0 1 0 0 0 401 0 201

402 403 402 401 402 3 403 402 2 403 403 403

401 402 401 0 0 1 0 0 0 401 0 201

401 344 403 401 402 3 403 2 3 403 403 403

402 401 401 0 0 401 403 2 3 1 401 402

402 401 402 401 402 1 402 402 3 401 401 1

402 341 402 401 403 1 403 402 2 401 401 1

201 401 402 201 0 402 8 9 9 403 9 402

both both both both both 0 0 ventral 0 0 ventral dorsal

short use fracture -10 min 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 5.63. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

earth adzing total nr % low certainty 4 13 moderate certainty 3 9 high certainty 7 22 certain 18 56 Total number of tool parts 32 Scar interpretability

wood adzing total nr % 0 0 0 0 4 10 38 90 42

Figure 5.64. Number of tool parts per scar interpretability category

Scar size (missing) small moderate large very large Total

earth adzing total nr % 1 2 26 55 10 21 10 21 0 0 47

Figure 5.65. Scar size frequency

wood adzing total nr % 0 0 22 32 22 32 21 30 4 6 69

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

The assumed influence of the material being worked on the process of hafting trace formation is thus confirmed for adzing tools: the less penetrable the material worked, the less pronounced and interpretable the resulting hafting traces.

sively (e.g. exp. 4/1-4/4) also show frequent bright spots. When all bright spots linked to fractures are excluded, it does not really affect the general pattern, but bright spots tend to be more frequent within one tool part for wood adzing tools. The material being worked does not appear to influence the formation of bright spots, which is probably a result of the limited difference in scarring intensity between the two toolsets, given that both features are highly linked.

5.2.1.2 Scraping tools Macroscopic analysis Scarring is limited on the hide working tools (exp. 16), while it is notably more intense on wood scraping tools (Fig. 5.67). This is not a factor of use duration as three hide working tools were extensively used. Both the scarring intensity and the number of tool parts which are scarred differ between the two toolsets. Retouch is not a factor since the hafted parts of three hide working tools remained unretouched, while only two hafted parts remained unretouched for the woodworking tools.

Striations are rare for both toolsets and no real differences can be observed on a general level (Table 5.1). The striation attributes do not differ significantly either; only the dominance of parallel striations is somewhat less pronounced on earth adzing tools. Consequently, the material worked has no notable impact on the process of hafting striation formation. Rounding occurs even less frequently than striations (Table 5.1). A minor tendency towards more rounding on earth adzing tools can be observed, but this has more to do with intruding earth particles than to issues of hafting. Most hafting-related rounding is caused by contact with leather bindings. DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

While gloss did not prove to be influenced by use motion, the material worked may have an influence on its formation. As with the adzing tools, there is a trend towards increased gloss formation when the penetrability of the material being worked decreases (Fig. 5.68). There is no gloss formation on

Exp. 1/1 401 Exp. 1/2 141 Exp. 1/4 0 Exp. 1/9 0 Exp. 1/10 0 Exp. 4/1 401 Exp. 4/2 0 Exp. 4/3 0 Exp. 4/4 9 Exp. 4/5 0 Exp. 9/2 0 Exp. 16/13 0

402 0 402 0 0 0 402 0 0 402 0 0

402 0 0 0 0 0 0 403 0 402 0 0

402 141 403 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0

401 144 0 0 0 401 402 403 0 0 0 0

401 141 403 0 401 0 0 403 0 401 0 0

0 144 404 0 0 401 0 401 0 0 402 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 201 201 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 403 402 0 403 401 0

401 144 0 0 0 0 401 402 403 401 403 402

0 144 402 0 0 0 401 401 0 0 0 0

0 144 401 0 0 0 402 401 0 0 403 401

201 0 201 both 0 both 0 0 0 0 0 dorsal 8 0 9 both 9 0 9 both 9 0 9 ventral

Exp. ID

109

clear limit

short use fracture -10 min 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Figure 5.66. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part

clear limit

Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 16/18 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38

321 203 201 202 202 203 202 204

0 202 204 202 0 0 0 202

402 0 0 0 402 402 401 0

0 0 204 201 342 0 0 204

401 0 402 401 342 402 401 0

321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 201 201 0 201

401 0 0 0 401 401 402 0

0 0 0 0 343 401 404 401

323 201 0 0 201 0 0 201

0 0 0 dorsal both 0 both 0

Figure 5.67. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 16/18 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38

DPridge

Exp. ID

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

110

clear limit

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 401 0 0 0 401 0 0

0 402 0 0 0 401 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0

0 0 0 0 342 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 401 0 401

0 0 0 0 343 401 401 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 401 401 401

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401

0 0 0 0 343 401 0 402

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402

0 0 0 0 343 401 401 401

0 0 0 0 0 402 0 401

dorsal 0 0 0 both both both ventral

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 16/18 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38

402 203 203 202 404 403 0 203

401 0 224 222 0 0 0 0

404 0 403 1 403 401 402 0

401 0 224 221 341 0 0 0

403 402 402 2 403 401 403 401

401 0 201 201 200 0 0 0

402 0 401 201 402 401 402 0

403 0 401 201 403 403 403 401

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.68. Macroscopic gloss intensity per hafted tool part

clear limit

fracture

403 202 201 201 200 402 201 201

both dorsal both both both both both both

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Figure 5.69. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

the hide scraping tools apart from exp. 16/8, while gloss was formed in varying degrees on all the wood scraping tools. In spite of this seemingly consistent pattern, one should not forget the non-recurrent nature of gloss (see chapter 3). Microscopic analysis For polish, no general trends can be observed (Table 5.1). Hafting polish is more or less omnipresent on all tools without significant differences in intensity. This may be influenced by the longer use duration of three hide working tools (exp. 16/8, 16/17 and 16/18), but the similar amount of polish formation on exp. 16/6 shows that use duration does not explain it entirely. Even on a more detailed level, polish is not significantly better developed on the wood scraping tools. The same goes for other polish attributes, which fact contrasts with observations on the adzing tools. Perhaps use motion and pressure exerted dominate and partially counteract any influence of the material being worked. After all, it was demonstrated that adzing tools generally showed better developed hafting wear. This would imply that tool use as a whole determines the hafting trace development. On a general level, the main difference in scarring intensity (Fig. 5.69) concerns the ventral face: hide working tools show less scarring, even when their hafted parts remained unretouched (e.g., exp. 16/17 and 16/18). When scarring caused by fractures and non-interpretable scarring are excluded, the scarring intensity shows a faint trend towards

hide scraping wood scraping nr of tool nr of tool % % parts parts low 11 11 38 41 moderate 13 7 45 26 high 3 3 10 11 extensive 2 6 7 22 Total number of tool parts 29 27 Scar intensity

Figure 5.70. Number of tool parts per scar intensity category

Scar size small moderate large very large TOTAL

hide scraping nr of tool parts % 26 67 10 26 1 3 2 5 39

wood scraping nr of tool parts % 18 42 19 44 3 7 3 7 43

Figure 5.71. Number of tool parts per scar size category

more extensively damaged tool parts on wood scraping tools (Fig. 5.70). For the scar morphology, there is a slightly higher frequency of crushing on wood scraping tools. For the scar size, there is an equally minor tendency for more moderate to very large-sized scars on wood scraping tools (Fig. 5.71). The trend is however not as marked as for adzing tools.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

The scar distribution along the edge (within one tool part) provides interesting data (Fig. 5.72). On 19% of the damaged tool parts of hide scraping tools no distribution could be determined since only one scar was present in the tool part in question. This explains why there were no important differences between hide and wood scraping tools on the level of the damaged tool parts. While the number of damaged tool parts does not really differ, a large number of tool parts show very limited scarring or, more precisely, a single scar only. This again supports the idea that the material being worked influences the scarring intensity. The scar interpretability does not really differ between the two toolsets, but there is a tendency towards better interpretable scarring on wood scraping tools in comparison to hide scraping tools.

single scar even & run-together uneven & run-together uneven & wide alternating continuous distinct patches TOTAL

one

few

moderate many Total number of tool parts

hide scraping wood scraping Bright spot size nr of tool % nr of tool % parts parts small 1 0 11 0 medium 1 0 11 0 small 5 9 56 29 medium 0 6 0 19 large 0 2 0 6 small 1 0 11 0 medium 1 8 11 26 large 0 1 0 3 large 0 5 0 16 9

Figure 5.74. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category

wood scraping nr of tool % parts 1 3 4 13 14 45 8 26 1 3 0 0 3 10 31

Striations are rare for both toolsets and their intensity does not really differ. Perpendicular striations predominate for both materials worked, but in a more pronounced way on hide scraping tools. Rounding is equally rare and no differences between the two groups can be identified. 5.2.1.3 Conclusion The material being worked proves mainly to influence hafting trace intensity. The macroscopic evidence was distinctive for both adzing and scraping tools. In both cases, tools used to work the best penetrable material showed the least scarring and gloss formation. On a microscopic level, the impact was less visible and pronounced and an impact could be identified for a few trace types only. On adzing tools, the main impact concerned polish and scarring, while on scraping tools the influence was most visible for bright spots, next to scarring. Consequently, the impact of the material worked on hafting trace intensity is not entirely independent of use motion.

Figure 5.72. Number of damaged tool parts per scar distribution category

Quite surprisingly, the material being worked significantly influences bright spot formation (Fig. 5.73). Hardly any bright spots can be observed on the hide scraping tools, while they are abundant on the wood scraping tools. Also the number and size of the bright spots per tool part differ. Apart from being rare on hide scraping tools in general, bright spots are also rare per tool part and they are predominantly small (Fig. 5.74). On wood scraping tools bright spots are more numerous and they tend to be larger. The same principle counts for bright spot development and linkage. For both toolsets it is friction with a flint particle that mainly causes bright spots.

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Systematic verification of the impact of material worked: use motion Two use motions were already included in the previous section and it was established that the impact of the material being worked on hafting trace intensity is not entirely independent of use motion.

DPbutt

5.2.2

Exp. ID Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/8 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 16/18 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38

0 0 0 0 402 402 0 0

401 0 0 401 401 403 0 0

401 0 0 401 0 0 401 0

401 0 0 0 342 403 0 0

401 0 0 0 341 402 0 0

402 0 0 0 401 0 402 0

0 0 0 0 403 403 402 0

0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0

401 0 0 0 402 0 0 0

401 0 0 0 341 0 402 402

0 0 0 0 402 0 0 402

0 0 0 0 341 0 402 404

402 0 0 0 0 0 0 403

Figure 5.73. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part

31

BUTT

Scar distribution

hide scraping nr of tool % parts 8 19 3 7 11 26 7 17 6 14 1 2 6 14 42

Number

111

clear limit

fracture

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

both 0 0 0 dorsal dorsal both ventral

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

112

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

5.2.3

Systematic verification of the impact of material worked: hafting material Both adzing and scraping tools were examined: four adzing tools, two per material worked, and eight scraping tools, six for wood scraping and two for hide scraping. Antler hafts and different kinds of bindings were examined (Fig. 5.75). Since hafting striations and rounding proved not to be determined by the material worked, these traces were not examined.

the experimental reference collection fractured during use, which contrasts with the wood adzing tools. The expected tendencies are confirmed also for gloss (Table 4.2). The wood adzing tools show distinctly more tool parts with gloss formation and gloss is overall more intense. Despite differences in use duration, the macroscopic results support the independent nature of the influence of the material being worked on the formation of hafting traces.

5.2.3.1 Adzing tools Only a limited number of tools are available and their use durations differ significantly. While the wood adzing tools were used for 36 minutes and 2 minutes (fracture), the earth adzing tools were used for one hour and four hours. This is likely to have influenced the hafting trace pattern.

Microscopic analysis For polish, the microscopic evidence is not obvious, but more tool parts are polished on wood adzing tools despite their shorter use (Table 5.1). This suggests that comparable use durations would probably have resulted in more obvious differences between the two toolsets. The general scarring data are again very clear (Fig. 5.77). Scarring is much more extensive on wood adzing tools, which confirms expected trends. Bright spots also differ significantly between the two groups of material worked (Fig. 5.78). This was not so obvious for the reference adzing toolset.

Macroscopic analysis Scarring is clearly more frequent and more intense on wood adzing tools (Fig. 5.76), particularly given their relatively short use duration in comparison with that of earth adzing tools. However, part of the scarring on the wood adzing tools results from the proximal hafting fracture (exp. 9/1) and the medial fracture (exp. 10/26), but the occurrence of these fractures is also a consequence of the material worked. After all, none of the earth adzing tools in

ID

HT HM TP

TD

AP

Exp. 9/1 Exp. 10/26 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 9/4

J J J J

D D D D

LD LD LD LD

Tr Tr Tr Tr

Pe Pe Pe Pe

Exp. 10/24

J

D

T

A

Pe

Exp. 10/36

J

D

T

A

Pe

Exp. 10/37

J

D

T

A

Pe

Exp. 10/32 Exp. 16/9 Exp. 10/6

J J J

D D D

LD T LD

Tr A Tr

Pe Pe Pe

Exp. 20/3

J

D

T

A

Pe

Exp. 20/4

J

D

T

A

Pe

The independence of the influence of the material being worked from the hafting material is thus established for all three microscopic trace types.

Haft Partial B Specif. material wrapping antler leather linen antler 0 linen antler 0 leather wood 0 lime tree wet wood 0 leather wet wood leather leather wet wood leather leather wood 0 linen wood 0 linen antler 0 linen fresh wood 0 intestines fresh wood 0 intestines

H:min: Haft Activity sec contact dorsal adzing 0:36:32 dorsal adzing 0:02:11 ventral adzing 1:00:00 ventral adzing 4:00:00

Material worked wood wood earth, plants earth, plants

ventral scraping 0:30:54

wood

scraper

ventral scraping 0:30:04

wood

scraper

ventral scraping 0:42:00

wood

scraper

dorsal scraping 0:31:22 ventral scraping 1:15:00 ventral scraping 0:30:00

wood wood wood

scraper scraper scraper

Tooltype scraper scraper blade scraper

dorsal scraping 0:43:13 dry hide + ochre

scraper

ventral scraping 0:11:48 dry hide + ochre

scraper

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Exp. 9/1 Exp. 10/26 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 9/4

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.75. Experimental details

clear limit

344 202 0 402

342 0 0 201

341 403 1 402

0 342 0 0

402 344 401 403

344 0 0 0

342 8 201 201

342 401 1 0

402 344 0 0

344 8 202 401

both both 0 dorsal

Figure 5.76. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

clear limit

Exp. 9/1 Exp. 10/26 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 9/4

404 402 402 0

402 0 0 0

402 403 402 201

401 402 0 0

403 0 402 201

401 401 401 0

403 401 402 401

403 402 402 401

344 8 9 9

both both both both

113

short use fracture -10 min 0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0

VMsurf

VMedge

VPedge

VPbulb

VPbutt

DMsurf

clear limit

402 144 143 402 402 402 402 144 402 0 8 0 0 401 402 8 0 0 0 403 0 0 0 9 0 0 403 0 0 401 0 9

both both 0 0

VPsurf

DMedge

DMridge

DPsurf

DPedge

143 403 0 403 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 402 0 401 0

BUTT

Exp. 9/1 Exp. 10/26 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 9/4

DPbutt

Exp. ID

DPridge

Figure 5.77. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

short use fracture -10 min 0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Figure 5.78. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part

clear limit

Exp. 10/6 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/37 Exp. 16/9 Exp. 20/3 Exp. 20/4

402 402 202 203 201 204 202 201

0 0 203 0 0 0 0 0

401 401 401 201 0 402 0 402

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

402 401 403 401 401 403 0 401

401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

201 0 201 0 201 0 201 0

401 402 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 404 0 401 402 0 0 401

402 0 0 0 0 201 201 0

both both dorsal both ventral dorsal 0 dorsal

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Figure 5.79. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part

clear limit

Exp. 10/6 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/37 Exp. 16/9 Exp. 20/3 Exp. 20/4

401 401 402 0 401 401 401 401

402 403 402 402 401 403 401 401

402 401 401 401 401 401 401 401

0 401 401 0 0 402 401 0

401 402 402 401 401 403 401 401

401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401

401 0 401 0 0 402 401 0

402 401 0 401 0 0 0 401

402 401 401 403 402 402 402 401

401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401

401 402 401 401 401 401 0 401

401 0 402 0 0 401 401 401

401 0 401 0 401 402 402 401

9 402 9 0 401 402 201 9

dorsal both dorsal both both both ventral 0

Figure 5.80. Polish intensity per hafted tool part

5.2.3.2 Scraping tools Macroscopic analysis Macroscopic scarring is indeed more intense on wood scraping tools, while being rare on hide scraping tools (Fig. 5.79). Even retouch did not have a negative influence on this pattern, as even the retouched hafted parts of several wood scraping tools show diagnostic scarring (e.g., exp. 10/6).

The gloss evidence shows the same obvious pattern (Table 4.2). No gloss was formed on the hide scraping tools, while gloss was relatively frequent on the wood scraping tools. This again confirms the impact of the material worked. Microscopic analysis Even on a general level, microscopic polish subscribes to the pattern identified: the polish is clearly more extensive and better developed on the wood scraping tools (Fig. 5.80).

114

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

The scarring pattern is not so obvious, but scars mark only the haft limit on wood scraping tools (Table 5.1). There is also a tendency towards more and more intense scarring on wood scraping tools. The fact that hardly any scarring could be distinguished with certainty on exp. 20/4 is revealing, as it shows that hafting scars are more difficult to identify and interpret on hide scraping tools despite the limited coarseness of retouch and the lack of retouch on the dorsal medial edge (Table 3.3). Even if all non-interpretable scarring is excluded, the interpretation rate for hide working tools is still far less than for wood working tools, and for none of the damaged tool parts can an entirely certain interpretation be provided (Fig. 5.81). Of course, the important difference between the number of tool parts involved per material worked is also a consequence of the small number of tools included. If viewed per tool, the difference is insignificant: an average of 5 tool parts per hide working tool against 6 per wood working tool. Nevertheless, these data leave no doubt concerning the less developed and less interpretable scarring on hide working tools. Scar interpretability hide working wood working low certainty 3 1 moderate certainty 3 3 high certainty 3 6 certain 0 26 Total number of tool parts 9 36 Figure 5.81. Number of damaged tool parts per interpretation category

ID

The number and intensity of bright spots does not really differ between the two toolsets, but bright spots never mark the haft limit on hide scraping tools, while they do on wood scraping tools (Table 5.1). The lack of a marked difference between the two groups is linked with the minor differences in the number of damaged tool parts. Nevertheless, differences are indubitable: all bright spots on hide working tools are small, and only one or a few are present per tool part (Fig. 5.82). Bright spots tend to be more frequent and larger on wood working tools. Bright spot size small one moderate small few moderate moderate (missing) Total number of tool parts Number

hide working

Figure 5.82. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category

The impact of the material being worked on trace intensity is thus independent of the hafting material, even for scraping tools. 5.2.4

Systematic verification of the impact of material worked: hafting arrangement Seventeen tools in total were examined: eight for adzing and nine for scraping (Fig. 5.83).

H:min: Haft Haft Activity Wrapping Bindings sec Contact Material wood leather leather dorsal adzing 0:20:14 wood leather leather dorsal adzing 0:39:25 antler leather 0 both adzing 0:50:00 wood wet leather wet leather dorsal adzing 0:30:09 wood leather linen dorsal adzing 0:14:34

HT HM TP

TD

AP

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33

J J M J J

I I I I I

LD LD LD LD LD

Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Exp. 4/6

MS

D

LD

Tr

Pe

wood

Exp. 4/7 MS Exp. 4/8 M Exp. 10/21 J Exp. 10/23 J Exp. 10/39 MS Exp. 16/10 MS

I I I I D D

L L T LD T T

A Tr A Tr A A

Pa Pe Pe Pe Pe Pa

wood wood wood wood wood wood

Exp. 16/19 MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

0

wet leather

both

scraping 1:00:00

Exp. 20/1

MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

0

leather

both

scraping 0:36:47

Exp. 20/2

M

D

T

A

Pe

wood

0

leather

both

scraping 0:53:18

Exp. 20/5

MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

0

leather

both

scraping 0:25:43

Exp. 20/6

MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

0

leather

both

scraping 0:14:00

Figure 5.83. Experimental details

0

2 0 2 0 0 5

wood working 1 1 2 5 2 11

leather

both

adzing

1:15:00

leather leather both adzing 1:15:00 leather leather both adzing 0:30:00 leather linen ventral scraping 0:30:25 wet leather wet leather ventral scraping 0:30:34 0 linen both scraping 0:50:00 0 leather both scraping 1:00:00

Material worked oak oak acacia oak oak very wet earth earth earth oak oak spruce dry pig hide tanned sheep hide fresh deer hide dry deer hide+ochre fresh deer hide fresh deer hide

Tooltype scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper flake adze flake adze flake adze scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper tanged scraper scraper scraper

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

5.2.4.1 Adzing tools Of the eight tools, five were used to adze wood, and three were used on earth. They have varying hafting arrangements: the majority were hafted indirectly, implying that the tool was first wrapped in a piece of leather before it was mounted on the haft.

115

The gloss pattern is clear-cut: gloss is more frequent and more intense on the wood adzing tools (Fig. 5.85). Microscopic analysis The general polish pattern does not exhibit obvious trends; only a minor tendency to more polished tool parts on wood adzing tools can perhaps be suggested (Fig. 5.86). However, only exp. 4/8 was used for a similar length of time to the wood adzing tools and its polish development is clearly more restricted. The detailed polish pattern is not more obvious, but extensive polish development occurs only on tool parts of wood adzing tools. The impact of the material worked on hafting polish formation does not prove to be entirely independent of the hafting arrangement, perhaps partly due to differences in use duration.

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Macroscopic analysis The macroscopic scarring seems to confirm the assumption that scarring is more intense on wood adzing tools (Fig. 5.84). Scarring is even lacking on the ventral edges of the earth adzing tools. Retouch does not account for this difference as it is almost absent on exp. 4/7. Nor are all hafted edges of exp. 4/6 retouched. On the other hand, exp. 1/11 is clearly damaged despite its coarsely retouched hafted edges.

clear limit

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 4/7 Exp. 4/8

2 402 403 402 201 1 202 0

0 202 0 401 0 0 0 0

0 2 403 403 401 402 401 402

0 0 342 0 341 0 0 0

0 1 342 403 342 402 402 402

0 0 342 401 0 2 0 0

202 0 8 201 201 8 0 0

401 0 0 402 0 2 0 0

0 0 0 402 341 2 401 0

201 404 343 403 0 8 0 0

dorsal 0 both dorsal both 0 0 0

Exp. ID

DPbutt

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Figure 5.84. Macroscopic scarring per hafted tool part

clear limit

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 4/7 Exp. 4/8

0 401 403 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 402 401 0 401 0 0

0 0 402 402 0 0 401 0

0 0 402 401 0 0 402 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 0 401

0 0 402 4 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 402 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 401 0

0 404 402 401 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 both 0 0 0 0

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 4/7 Exp. 4/8

401 404 0 402 402 401 0 401

402 402 402 402 401 403 402 402

401 401 401 403 401 401 401 401

401 403 401 401 401 0 402 401

402 402 401 401 0 403 402 401

401 401 401 402 401 401 401 402

401 402 401 402 401 401 421 401

401 401 401 401 401 402 201 401

401 402 8 0 401 8 621 401

401 401 402 402 402 402 401 402

0 0 402 0 401 401 402 401

401 401 401 0 401 403 402 402

402 403 402 0 0 403 403 401

Figure 5.86. Polish intensity per hafted tool part

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 5.85. Macroscopic gloss per hafted tool part

clear limit

fracture

201 9 0 0 402 8 9 201

both ventral 0 0 0 both both ventral

0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 4/7 Exp. 4/8

404 403 203 402 402 402 0 403

0 0 401 401 401 401 0 0

402 210 401 403 402 402 402 401

0 0 401 0 402 403 401 0

402 210 402 402 342 402 402 402

201 0 203 402 200 403 0 0

401 401 401 402 402 402 401 401

401 401 401 403 401 402 401 402

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

116

clear limit

fracture

402 403 203 404 401 8 9 202

dorsal ventral both both 0 dorsal 0 dorsal

0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Figure 5.87. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

Scarring interpretability not interpretable low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tool parts

total nr 13 1 2 2 10 28

earth adzing % 46 4 7 7 36

adapted % 7 13 13 67

total nr 4 0 2 5 36 47

wood adzing % 9 0 4 11 77

adapted % 0 5 12 84

Figure 5.88. Number of damaged tool parts per interpretability category

Scarring intensity low moderate high extensive Total number of tool parts

earth adzing total nr % 6 40 8 53 1 7 0 0 15

wood adzing total nr % 16 37 15 35 9 21 3 7 43

Figure 5.89. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category

Even for scarring there are few major differences, but the haft limit is more difficult to define for earth adzing tools (Fig. 5.87). The small amount of retouch on exp. 4/7 did not permit the formation of a clear haft limit. On adzing tools, a clear limit was missing only on the coarsely retouched exp. 1/11. Moreover, the majority of scars on the earth adzing tools are not interpretable (Fig. 5.88). Even if the noninterpretable tool parts are excluded (see “adapted %”), the percentage of certain interpretations on earth adzing tools is still far smaller than on wood adzing tools. For the scarring intensity, none of the tool parts on earth adzing tools is extensively damaged, and only one tool part with a considerable amount of scarring can be observed (Fig. 5.89). This contrasts significantly with wood adzing tools. The scarring evidence is thus more conclusive than appeared at first sight and the identified impact of the material being worked on scar formation proves to be independent of the hafting arrangement. Differences are again obvious for bright spots. Bright spots were rarely formed on the earth adzing tools, while they

were frequent on the wood adzing tools (fig. 5.90). On the latter, the bright spots are not a consequence of a fracture inside the haft, at least not on exp. 10/22 (very extensive bright spots). They are thus linked with intensive scarring, as demonstrated by exp. 10/22 (see fig. 5.87). The material responsible for bright spot production on the earth adzing tools is in one case in three flint friction. All other spots are well-developed polish spots, one due to intrusive earth particles, another due to contact with the wooden haft. By contrast, 94% of the tool parts of wood adzing tools show bright spots which resulted from flinton-flint friction. The wood adzing bright spots also tend to be larger (Tables 6). The independence of the impact of the material worked on the formation of hafting scarring and bright spots is confirmed for the adzing tools. Differences in period of use between both toolsets probably caused the similarities in polish formation. 5.2.4.2 Scraping tools Macroscopic analysis Macroscopic scarring is clearly better developed on the wood scraping tools (Table 4.1). However, the hafted parts of most hide scraping tools were retouched, while only one wood scraping tool was partially retouched (exp. 10/21). If the scarring on this one tool is compared with that on the hide scraping tools, differences are small. Also, if the scarring evidence of the only unretouched (i.e., hafted part) hide scraping tool (exp. 20/6) is compared with the unretouched (i.e., hafted part) wood scraping tools (exp. 10/23

DPridge

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 1/11 Exp. 10/22 Exp. 10/33 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 4/7 Exp. 4/8

0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0

402 401 0 402 0 403 0 0

402 0 0 402 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 402 401 0 0 0

0 0 0 401 0 401 401 0

0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0

401 402 401 403 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0

201 0 8 403 0 8 0 0

402 0 0 403 401 0 0 0

0 0 402 402 0 0 0 0

402 0 401 403 0 0 0 0

401 0 0 403 0 0 0 0

117

BUTT

Exp. ID

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

clear limit

fracture

0 404 0 401 0 8 9 0

ventral 0 0 both 0 dorsal 0 0

0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

The wood scraping tools are far more damaged than the hide scraping tools, despite the more extensive use of some of the latter (Fig. 5.91). There is again a high percentage of non-interpretable scarring on hide scraping tools, while all scarring could be interpreted on wood scraping tools. The exact intensity does not really differ much between the two groups. If the non-interpretable scarring is excluded, there are evident differences in scar interpretability (Fig. 5.92). While the great majority of damaged tool parts (85%) can be interpreted with certainty on the wood scraping tools, these reach only 36% on the hide scraping tools. Only the material worked can account for this marked difference. The bright spot pattern is not obvious and a similar pattern can be observed for both toolsets (Table 5.1). The majority of wood scraping bright spots were again formed by flint friction, while the materials responsible for hide scraping bright spots are more varied (Tables 6). The formation of such spots is most often due to a combination of a hafting material and a flint-on-flint influence, and it is difficult to attribute them to one specific material. In addition, the majority of hide scraping bright spots are moderately developed, while the majority of wood scraping bright spots are well developed. Lastly, bright spots tend to be more numerous and larger per tool part on wood scraping tools than on hide scraping tools (Fig. 5.93).

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Microscopic analysis As with the adzing tools, the polish formation is similar in both toolsets (Table 5.1). The impact of the hafting arrangement proves too important and it obliterates all potential impact from the material worked.

Exp. ID

DPridge

and 10/39), the evidence is not conclusive. When use duration is considered, the pattern is even more indistinct. Exp. 16/10 and 16/20 were used for twice as long as exp. 10/21 and 10/23, but for only slightly longer than exp. 10/39. The macroscopic evidence is thus not conclusive. Gloss evidence is far more conclusive (Table 4.2). Gloss was formed on all wood scraping tools, while on only half of the hide scraping tools. The hafting arrangement did not counteract the impact of the material worked on the process of gloss formation.

DPbutt

Figure 5.90. Bright spot intensity per hafted tool part

clear limit

Exp. 10/21 Exp. 10/23 Exp. 10/39 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 16/19 Exp. 20/1 Exp. 20/2 Exp. 20/5 Exp. 20/6

202 8 202 203 0 202 403 9 201

0 403 0 0 0 0 2 402 0

402 401 403 211 402 1 3 402 401

0 402 0 0 0 0 3 402 0

402 402 402 401 401 1 3 402 0

0 401 0 0 401 401 3 201 201

403 404 401 401 401 0 1 1 402

402 403 402 403 1 0 401 212 201

203 9 201 401 0 9 8 403 403

both both both both ventral 0 ventral 0 0

Figure 5.91. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

hide scraping wood scraping total nr % total nr % low certainty 3 0 12 0 moderate certainty 6 1 24 4 high certainty 7 3 28 12 certain 9 22 36 85 Total number of tool parts 25 26 Scar interpretability

Figure 5.92. Number of tool parts per scar interpretability category

Although the evidence is less clear than on adzing tools, the material worked proved to have an influence on the hafting trace intensity of scraping tools (polish is an exception) which is largely independent of the hafting arrangement used. 5.2.5 Extrapolation to other materials worked Since the influence of the material being worked concerns the hafting trace intensity, it is not useful to include other materials. After all, each material worked can be expected to take its appropriate place on a continuum based on its penetrability. Easily penetrable materials (e.g., earth) are to be placed at one end, associated with the least developed hafting traces, and materials which are difficult to pene-

118

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

hide scraping wood scraping total nr % total nr % small 1 0 5 0 medium 2 1 one 11 5 large 1 0 5 0 small 7 4 37 19 medium 2 6 few 11 29 large 0 3 0 14 small 2 1 11 5 medium 2 4 moderate 11 19 large 1 1 5 5 many large 1 1 5 5 Total number of tool parts 19 21 Number

Bright spot size

Figure 5.93. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category

trate (e.g., bone, antler) should be placed at the other end, associated with the best-developed hafting traces. A material like wood is to be positioned somewhere in between, depending on whether it is fresh or seasoned, hardwood or softwood (see chapter 2). 5.2.6 Conclusion It could be established that the material being worked influences hafting trace intensity and that this impact is largely irrespective of use motion, hafting material and hafting arrangement used. On a macroscopic level, the evidence was generally convincing. Only the macroscopic scarring on scraping tools was not conclusive in supporting the independence of the worked material impact from the hafting arrangement variable. The hafting arrangement also obliterated the impact of the material worked on a microscopic level. For polish, no independence could be demonstrated for either adzing or scraping tools. For scarring and bright spots, data were conclusive. The visibility of the impact of the material worked consequently differs depending on the trace type being investigated and it is not entirely independent of the hafting arrangement.

5.3

DISCUSSION

For a final evaluation of the impact of tool use on the interpretability of hafting traces, data included in table 8 are examined. This table evaluates the interpretability of each aspect of the hafting arrangement as if the tool were an archaeological one, and the most important arguments on which the interpretation was based are mentioned. Aspects range from the pure distinction between hafted and hand-held tools up to the identification of the exact hafting arrangement used. For each analytical level a separate judgement is made. All use motions are divided into their respective categories (see chapter 2), resulting in three main groups: low-pressure activities (cutting, sawing), moderate-pressure activities (scraping, grooving, perforating, drilling) and high-pressure activities (adzing, chiselling, striking). The moderate-pressure actions are further

subdivided into non-rotating motions (scraping, grooving) and rotating motions (perforating, drilling). A similar procedure is followed for the materials worked. Poorly penetrable materials are schist, bone and antler. Moderately penetrable materials include wood and easily penetrable materials include earth. All hafted tools are considered, but attention is focussed only on the exact impact of tool use on the certainty level of the interpretations. 5.3.1 Macroscopic analysis For the macroscopic evaluations, the impact of tool use on the following issues is considered: the difference between hand-held and hafted tools, the location of the haft limit, and the interpretation of the relative hardness of the hafting material and the general hafting method. 5.3.1.1 Hafting The most obvious impact of use motion on the level of certainty with which hafted tool use is identified is visible when high-pressure activities are contrasted with all other use motions (Fig. 5.94). Tools used in high-pressure activities clearly allow more certain interpretations than those in other activities. Practically all tools can be identified as having been used hafted based on macroscopic evidence. The few tools which are interpretable only with little certainty are exp. 1/6, exp. 4/1 and exp. 4/4. Retouch next to short tool use (exp. 4/4) proves responsible. For moderate-pressure activities, tools are more evenly distributed over the interpretability categories. Low-pressure activities lead to two extremes for the interpretability of their hafting traces: uncertain and certain interpretations. This appears to depend on the possibility of identifying a clear use-wear limit. Tools lacking such a limit do not prove to be interpretable on the basis of macroscopic data only. Consequently, use motion proves to influence hafting trace interpretability, in particular for high- and lowpressure motions. The material worked alone does not seem to influence the level of certainty of a macroscopic interpretation. For all materials, more or less even distribution over the categories can be observed. However, a reliable evaluation requires the inclusion of use motion (Fig. 5.95). Activities on easily penetrable materials usually do not permit a firm macroscopic identification of hafting, except when the pressure exerted is high or use-wear traces terminate abruptly. For moderately and poorly penetrable materials certain interpretations are possible particularly when the pressure exerted is high. 5.3.1.2 Haft limit The haft limit of most tools used in high-pressure actions can be interpreted with certainty (Fig. 5.96). For tools used in low-pressure actions, percentages are identical to those in fig. 5.94, given that both interpretations rely on the abrupt termination of use-wear traces. For other use motions, it appears to be difficult to identify the haft limit on the majority of tools.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

Hafting interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tools

high pressure activity total nr 0 3 0 0 30 33

% 0 9 0 0 91

moderate pressure activity total nr % 26 30 14 16 15 17 14 16 19 22 88

moderate pressure rotating activity total nr % 8 17 8 17 8 17 8 17 14 30 46

119

low pressure activity total nr 5 1 1 0 9 16

% 31 6 6 0 56

Figure 5.94. Number of tools per certainty level and per use motion (macroscopic)

Hafting interpretability

Activity

low pressure moderate pressure uncertain moderate pressure - rotating low pressure moderate pressure low certainty moderate pressure - rotating high pressure low pressure moderate pressure moderate certainty moderate pressure - rotating moderate pressure high certainty moderate pressure - rotating low pressure moderate pressure certain moderate pressure - rotating high pressure Total nr of tools

high penetrable material total nr % 1 4 8 30 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 4 2 7 0 0 10 37 27

medium penetrable material total nr % 1 1 10 13 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 11 14 0 0 9 12 0 0 8 11 11 14 0 0 19 25 76

low penetrable material total nr % 3 4 8 10 8 10 1 1 7 9 8 10 0 0 1 1 4 5 8 10 3 4 8 10 0 0 6 8 14 18 1 1 80

Figure 5.95. Number of tools per certainty level and per use (macroscopic)

Haft limit interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number

high pressure activity total nr 3 1 3 1 25 33

% 9 3 9 3 76

moderate pressure activity total nr % 41 47 10 11 8 9 16 18 13 15 88

moderate pressure rotating activity total nr % 27 59 4 9 6 13 2 4 7 15 46

low pressure activity total nr 6 1 0 0 9 16

% 38 6 0 0 56

Figure 5.96. Number of tools per certainty level and per use motion (macroscopic)

No distinct patterns arise when the material worked is examined alone, except that there is a surprisingly high percentage of uncertain interpretations for low-penetrable materials worked. When material worked and use motion are combined, trends are comparable to those in hafting interpretations (Fig. 5.97). Certain interpretations are more likely for easily penetrable materials worked in a high-pressure action. For tools used on poorly penetrable materials, haft limits are predominantly difficult to interpret except when combined with a high-pressure motion.

5.3.1.3 Relative hardness of the hafting material A macroscopic analysis does not prove sufficient for inferring the relative hardness of the hafting material. The most certain interpretations are predominantly associated with high-pressure actions and moderately or poorly penetrable materials. Tool use does not seem to be the determinant factor for the interpretability of the relative hardness of the hafting material.

120

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Haft limit interpretability

Activity

low pressure moderate pressure uncertain moderate rotating pressure high pressure low pressure moderate pressure low certainty moderate rotating pressure high pressure moderate pressure moderate certainty moderate rotating pressure high pressure moderate pressure moderate rotating pressure high certainty high pressure low pressure moderate pressure certain moderate rotating pressure high pressure Total nr of tools

well penetrable material total nr % 1 4 9 33 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 11 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 9 33 27

medium penetrable material total nr % 1 1 19 25 0 0 2 3 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 2 3 6 8 0 0 1 1 8 11 10 13 0 0 15 20 76

low penetrable material total nr % 4 5 13 16 27 34 0 0 1 1 3 4 4 5 0 0 3 4 6 8 0 0 7 9 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 9 1 1 80

Figure 5.97. Number of tools per certainty level and per use (macroscopic)

5.3.1.4 Hafting method The hafting method can rarely be interpreted on the basis of macroscopic data, and the few cases in which it can be interpreted do not seem to be determined by tool use. 5.3.2

Low Power analysis

5.3.2.3 Hafting material High-pressure actions again allow for the most certain hafting material interpretations. The exact hafting material can rarely be interpreted with more than moderate certainty, but analysts never claimed that exact materials could possibly be identified based on a low power analysis.

5.3.2.1 Hafting There is a clear increase in the number of firm interpretations of hafted tool use (Fig. 5.98). No major impact from tool use can be observed, except that high-pressure actions allow an overall higher certainty rate.

5.3.2.4 Hafting method No impact of tool use on the determination of the hafting method can be observed.

5.3.2.2 Haft limit The certainty level of interpretations also increases for the haft limit. The impact of tool use seems limited to the fact that the highest percentage of certain interpretations is obtained for high-pressure actions.

5.3.3.1 Hafting Practically all hafting interpretations can be made with certainty on the basis of a high power analysis, particularly for tools used in high-pressure actions. The impact of tool use on hafting trace interpretability is now minimal, given

Hafting uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total nr of tools

high pressure activity total nr 0 0 0 2 32 34

% 0 0 0 6 94

5.3.3

moderate pressure activity total nr % 1 1 8 9 8 9 14 16 57 65 88

Figure 5.98. Number of tools per certainty level and per use motion (low power)

High Power analysis

moderate pressure rotating activity total nr % 0 0 7 16 1 2 6 13 31 69 45

low pressure activity total nr 0 2 3 1 10 16

% 0 13 19 6 63

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES I

that the hafting traces on the majority of tools used in other than high-pressure use motions can also be interpreted with certainty. 5.3.3.2 Haft limit Tool use does not appear to influence the certainty level of a high power interpretation of the haft limit. 5.3.3.3 Hafting material At first sight, tool use appears to influence the interpretation of the hafting material. Most hafting material interpretations on tools used in low-pressure actions are uncertain. However, this is most likely due to the fact that most of these tools were hafted with the aid of resin instead of being a consequence of tool use. There is only a minor tendency towards more certain interpretations on tools used in highpressure actions. 5.3.3.4 Hafting method There is no impact of tool use on the interpretation of the hafting method. 5.3.4 Conclusion The impact of tool use on the certainty level of hafting interpretations appears to be limited, and it significantly decreases with increasing magnification. Generally, the less pressure is exerted during tool use the lower the certainty levels of the hafting interpretations.

5.4

CONCLUSION

It could be demonstrated that both use motion and material worked have a particular influence on the formation of hafting traces, and tool use indeed proves to be a dominant variable in the process of hafting trace formation. In general, use motion proved to determine the hafting trace pattern, while the material worked proved to determine the

121

hafting trace intensity. This impact proved to be irrespective of the hafting material, but independence of the hafting arrangement variable could not be entirely demonstrated. The main impact of use motion concerns the general trace distribution over the proximal versus medial tool part, or the centre of the tool versus the edges. The more detailed trace distribution over the dorsal versus the ventral face seems to be largely influenced by the hafting arrangement, but this still needs to be established (see chapter 6). The material being worked has a rather general influence on hafting trace intensity, but differences in development between the trace types may also be influenced by other variables. Nevertheless, it is clear that a good understanding of both variables significantly contributes to a more straightforward interpretation of hafting traces. Most probably, substantial misinterpretations do not result from not taking tool use into account, but they may influence the certainty of an interpretation. Given the particular influence of both variables, it does not seem impossible that an approximate use can be inferred on the basis of hafting traces alone (e.g., when the used part is absent) (examples in Rots 2002a). Because of its impact on trace patterning, use motion seems interpretable on the basis of hafting evidence. The exact material worked is more difficult to infer, but one can certainly get an idea about its penetrability. Tool uses with the most obvious hafting traces, such as wood adzing, provide the best interpretative possibilities. For scraping and grooving tools, too, the overall hafting trace pattern with a clear opposition between the medial and most proximal zone seems sufficiently obvious to allow a determination of use motion on the basis of hafting evidence alone. Easily penetrable materials worked and retouch will hamper this kind of interpretation. If approximate tool uses can indeed be identified on the basis of hafting evidence, this has important consequences for the interpretation of fractured pieces or tools which were resharpened before being discarded.

6. HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II: HAFTING MATERIAL AND HAFTING ARRANGEMENT

Understanding the impact of hafting material and hafting arrangement on the formation of hafting traces is essential for any identification beyond the distinction between hand-held and hafted tools. The influence of both variables is identified and it is examined whether it proves to be independent of other predominant variables. Attention is devoted to the kind of impact each variable has (i.e., on which trace types or trace attributes), the potential link between a trace or trace attribute and an aspect of the hafting arrangement, and the impact of both variables on the certainty level of interpretations. The hafting material includes both the haft and fixation material, the hafting arrangement includes the haft type and the use of bindings, a wrapping, or resin. Because the influence of tool use on the process of hafting trace formation is known, larger toolsets with differing tool uses can be included when verifying the independent nature of the impact identified.

6.1

INFLUENCE OF HAFT MATERIAL ON THE PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACE FORMATION

of the experimental reference collection (Table 1.1), only wood and antler are investigated here. The results will be extrapolated to bone later in this chapter. For comparability reasons, the same hafting arrangement as for chapter 5 is used: a juxtaposed haft on which the tool is fixed with leather bindings. Ten tools are examined in total, five of which were hafted on a wooden haft, and five others on an antler haft (Fig. 6.1). Tools were used for grooving wood for similar durations; only exp. 22/38 was used for a shorter period because of a use fracture. Exp. 22/36 is the only tool made out of coarse-grained flint, but it was retained in order to keep an equal number of tools between the two haft materials. 6.1.1.1 Macroscopic analysis For macroscopic scarring there is no appreciable difference between the two groups: the amount and intensity is comparable and a haft limit can generally be identified (Table 4.1). For gloss, minor differences can be observed between the two groups (Table 4.2): there is slightly more gloss formation on tools hafted against an antler haft. 6.1.1.2 Microscopic analysis

On the basis of the principles of a traditional use-wear investigation, the haft material is expected to determine the hafting trace morphology. Therefore, the different trace attributes (e.g., morphology, brightness, distribution) need to be examined. 6.1.1

Exploration and identification of the impact of haft material The effect of three materials, bone, antler and wood, needs to be examined in the main. Given the composition ID Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

J J J J J J J J J J

D D D D D D D D D D

LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD

Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Polish The different attributes are investigated according to their sequence in annex I. Given the haft contact, data are included only for the ventral face and the butt. The number of tool parts involved per haft material is exactly the same (Fig. 6.2), but the distribution over the tool parts is not. Wood-hafted tools show polish development on the ventral butt and ventral edges more frequently; while antler-hafted tools show a more even polish distribution over

H:min: Material Haft Haft Tooltype Activity Bindings sec worked contact material wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin antler leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin antler leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin antler leather ventral grooving 0:55:00 wood burin antler leather ventral grooving 0:29:00 wood burin antler leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 wood burin

Figure 6.1. Experimental details (based on table 1.1) (see annex II)

Grain size fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine

124

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

the tool parts.23 An evaluation of the differences in polish pattern on the ventral edges requires a consideration of stone tool protrusion from the haft: three antler-hafted tools (exp. 22/35, 22/36 and 22/39) protruded from their hafts, against one wood-hafted tool (exp. 22/32) (cf. tables 2 and 3.4). This explains the differences observed, as no haft polish can form on protruding edges (only a binding polish can). In addition, the maximum width of the wood-hafted tools is situated in the medial zone, while this is true for only one antler-hafted tool. For the others, the maximum width is situated more proximally, confirming the influence of tool protrusion on the polish development of the ventral proximal edge. Other differences are caused by the absence of a bulb on two wood-hafted tools in contrast to one antlerhafted tool (Table 3.5) and the length of some pieces which meant they did not fit under the microscope and their butts could not be analysed (Table 5.1).

Polish location Butt VMedge VMsurf VPbulb VPbutt VPedge VPsurf Total number of tool parts

Haft material antler wood total nr % total nr 3 1 13 3 5 13 4 3 17 4 2 17 4 5 17 3 5 13 3 3 13 24 24

% 4 21 13 8 21 21 13

Figure 6.2. Number of tool parts per location

For polish development and linkage, the only notable difference is that wood polish appears to spend longer in a poorer development stage (Fig. 6.3). The slower development of wood hafting polish is confirmed when one is confronted with the morphological data (Fig. 6.4). A wood hafting polish – expected to be bright – had to be categorised as moderately bright on a number of tool parts. In all such cases, polish was poorly to moderately developed. There is no marked difference between the moments (i.e., development stages) at which the distinct features (i.e., domed appearance for wood, pitted appearance for antler) of a certain polish appear. Only in one case did the domed feature of wood polish appear at an early development stage. Consequently, both polishes become distinctive at about the same stage. The hafting polish morphology proves to be similar to what is known for use-wear polishes, and interpretations thus rely on the same morphological criteria. When this evidence is linked with polish interpretability (Fig. 6.5), differences are not obvious, but the number of certain interpretations is more reduced for wood-hafted tools. 23

The ventral proximal edges of the wood-hafted tools had to be subdivided into smaller parts during the analysis, given that the polish was so unequal in its characteristics (Table 6.22). This did not distort the counts, as the actual number of tool parts was first re-evaluated.

Polish development

Polish linkage

poor poor moderate moderate moderate moderate high high Total number of tool parts

Haft material antler wood total nr % total nr 1 3 4 7 12 28 15 13 60 1 1 4 1 1 4 25 30

% 10 40 43 3 3

Figure 6.3. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category24

Haft material antler wood Polish Polish Polish development morphology brightness total total % % nr nr smooth moderate 0 2 0 7 bright 8 32 12 40 poor smooth & bright 0 1 0 3 domed smooth moderate 0 2 0 7 bright 8 32 5 17 smooth & moderate bright 7 28 0 0 pitted smooth & bright 0 6 20 0 domed smooth & bright 2 0 8 0 pitted high smooth & bright 0 2 0 7 domed Total number of tool parts 25 30 Figure 6.4. Number of tool parts per polish development, morphology and brightness category

Polish interpretability not interpretable low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tool parts

Haft material antler wood total nr % total nr 1 2 4 5 7 20 7 9 28 6 8 24 6 4 24 25 30

% 7 23 30 27 13

Figure 6.5. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category

The extension of a wood hafting polish proves to be more intrusive, even from an early stage, and more extensive (i.e., for the two last distribution categories) than for antler hafting polish (Fig. 6.6). The distribution characteristics of the two polishes differ in the light of their material hard24

24

For this figure and the following ones all tool parts are taken into account, including the smaller subdivisions of wood-hafted tools (see previous note). This explains the increase in the total number of tool parts in comparison to the previous figure.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

ness: antler is harder than wood and the contact area with the haft will therefore be smaller, while wood will allow some intrusion of the stone tool into the haft. The greater number of tool parts showing a polish that is distributed along the microtopography in the case of wood-hafted tools confirms this idea. By contrast, antler polish often remains restricted to the outer border or ridge. On the ventral surface there are no real differences between wood and antler, given the flat nature of the surface,. In a way, the pattern is inverted: a greater amount of surface area proved to have been in contact with the antler haft as more tool parts show an extensive polish in comparison to wood. Haft material antler wood Polish extension total nr % total nr % only border/ridge - low presence 4 0 16 0 only surface - low presence 9 9 36 30 only surface - moderate presence 2 0 8 0 only surface - extensive 2 1 8 3 presence along microtopography - low 0 3 0 10 presence along microtopography 3 6 12 20 moderate presence border and inner surface - low 3 5 12 17 presence border and inner surface 2 6 8 20 moderate presence Total number of tool parts 25 30 Figure 6.6. Number of tool parts per polish extension category

Scarring For scarring, both faces have to be examined. An essential element is the protrusion of the tool from the haft (see supra). Protruding edges are expected to be more intensively damaged, given their more limited support during use. Differences in retouch also need to be taken into account: two wood-hafted tools – exp. 22/30 and 22/31 – have unretouched hafted parts against none for antler hafts. However, the other three wood-hafted tools (i.e., the hafted parts) were completely retouched, while three antler-hafted tools were only partially retouched. The two groups are thus comparable. Scar intensity (see annex I) does not really differ between the two groups (Table 6.22). Scarring is poor overall and it is in fact slightly more extensive on wood-hafted tools. This implies that the impact of retouch is greater than that of protrusion from the haft. Also, the amount of scarring caused per material responsible is comparable: both binding and haft contact caused scarring. Nor do the scar morphologies differ; only scalar scars are somewhat more frequent on wood-hafted tools (also when binding-induced scars are excluded). For the further examination, only scars which were induced by a combination of haft and binding impact or by

125

the haft alone are considered. This distinction is based on the interpretation provided in table 6.22. There are minor differences in scar initiation (Fig. 6.7). Bindings contributed to the formation of practically all scars on the woodhafted tools, while this is less the case on the antler-hafted tools. Scars with wide initiations are predominant overall, while narrow initiations are more frequent on antler-hafted tools. This may be linked with the harder nature of antler. In all but one case (ventral butt), narrow initiations were observed on the edges. Curved initiations of some form are more frequent on the wood-hafted tools, but in all cases the influence of bindings could be noted. Scar initiation wide narrow dip straight into curve curve twisted Total number

Influence bindings no yes no yes no yes yes yes yes

antler total nr 2 6 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 14

% 14 43 7 21 7 0 0 7 0

wood total nr 1 11 0 1 0 4 1 4 2 24

% 4 46 0 4 0 17 4 17 8

Figure 6.7. Number of trace IDs per scar initiation category

Hinge terminations proved to be absent on wood-hafted tools, while snap terminations were absent on antler-hafted tools. This can again be linked with the hardness of the material used: the harder the material (antler) the more abrupt the termination (hinge). No differences in size or depth can be observed. Small differences exist for scar definition. Overall, antler-hafted tools show better-defined scars as a result of antler’s hardness (i.e., the harder the material, the better the scar definition). An uneven and run-together distribution within one tool part is predominant overall, while some tool parts of antler-hafted tools show an isolated scar only. This is a consequence of the poor hafting scarring on such tools, most probably due to more extensive retouch. The scar interpretability is the same for both groups of tools. Bright spots Only one tool part (the bulb) of the antler-hafted tools shows bright spots, in contrast to several parts of the woodhafted tools (Tables 5.1, 6.22). This could signify that bright spots are more numerous on wood-hafted tools, but such an inference is not yet valid and more evidence is required. In all cases, bright spots are rare and small. Striations Striations are more frequent on the ventral faces of antlerhafted tools than of wood-hafted tools (Table 6.22). All striations are smooth and straight with irregular edges. They are caused by friction with the haft material. On

126

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

antler-hafted tools smooth striations with grooves also occur. There are no differences in width and intrusiveness between both groups. On half of the antler-hafted tool parts, striations are perpendicular in orientation. All other tool parts (including of the wood-hafted ones) show striations with more variable orientations. Given the limited number of striations, the evidence is not yet conclusive with regard to the particular impact of the haft material on the formation of hafting striations.

convexity of the dorsal face results in unequal distribution of the haft contact, and it is probable that traces are more distinctive on the dorsal ridge in comparison to any of the ventral tool parts. Only a small set of four comparable tools is available as all other variables have to remain constant (Fig. 6.8). For the tool hafted on an antler haft, a partial wrapping was used and bindings were vegetal, but the combination of the two should result in a more or less comparable situation to that of the use of leather bindings alone.

Rounding/smoothing No rounding or smoothing can be observed on the ventral faces.

6.1.2.1 Macroscopic analysis There are no marked differences in scarring between the two groups, but scarring is clearly more extensive than in the case of a ventral haft contact (Fig. 6.9). Even if fractured tools are excluded (exp. 1/2, 9/1), scarring is still more extensive than in the case of a ventral haft contact. However, there is no difference between the two haft materials. More abundant scarring in the case of dorsal haft contact is of course a consequence of more limited edge support, which increases the chance of scarring. There are no real differences in gloss formation (but exp. 1/2 was used for only 2 minutes!) (Table 4.2), but gloss formation is perhaps slightly more prominent than on tools with a ventral haft contact.

6.1.1.3 Conclusion The most conclusive evidence for identifying the impact of a haft material is provided by polish. For scarring, the differences between the two groups are more limited, and for other trace types they are negligible (for now). All observed differences are as expected, based on use-wear traces. For polish, there are evident morphological differences, but wood polish also appeared to be slower in reaching an interpretable stage, while being more intrusive, given its higher penetrability. The same feature influenced the scarring process, and antler-induced scars tend to have better-defined exterior borders, more abrupt terminations and more frequent narrow initiations. Whether these differences persist when other variables are changed is examined below. In any case, this implies that a distinction between wood and antler hafts is difficult to draw; it is based mainly on polish. The ease of interpretation depends on polish development and intrusiveness, and the appearance of characteristic features. 6.1.2

Systematic verification of the impact of haft material: dorsal haft contact It was examined whether the face in contact with the haft significantly influences the number of traces formed and the ability to distinguish between haft materials: the transverse

ID Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 9/1

HT HM J J J J

D D D D

TP

TD

AP

LD LD LD LD

Tr Tr Tr Tr

Pe Pe Pe Pe

6.1.2.2 Microscopic analysis Polish Polish resulting from friction of broken tool parts in the haft is excluded. Only dorsal evidence is included, aside from that from the ventral butt as it may have been in contact with the stopping ridge of the haft. On some of the wood-hafted tools, wood polish was indeed observed on the outer edge of the ventral butt (Fig. 6.10). The concave morphology of the antler haft did not allow such contact. The number of polished tool parts and the polish distribution over the tool parts do not really differ much between the two haft materials, but polish is absent on the dorsal medial surface of one wood-hafted tool and on all butts of the wood-hafted tools.

H:min: Material Haft Partial Tooltype Bindings H Contact Activity sec worked material wrapping wood 0 leather dorsal adzing 0:30:30 oak scraper wood 0 leather dorsal adzing 0:02:30 oak scraper wood 0 leather dorsal adzing 0:23:52 oak scraper antler leather linen dorsal adzing 0:36:32 oak scraper

DPedge

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 9/1

DPridge

Exp. ID

DPbutt

Figure 6.8. Experimental details

clear limit

2 2 402 344

0 344 0 342

403 403 403 341

0 341 0 0

403 404 404 402

0 0 0 344

0 0 201 342

402 402 401 342

0 343 403 402

2 0 0 344

both both both both

Figure 6.9. Macroscopic scarring per hafted tool part

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Polish localisation DMedge DMridge DMsurf DPedge DPridge DPsurf DPbutt Butt VPbutt Total

antler haft nr of tool parts 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8

% 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 0

wooden haft nr of tool parts % 3 14 3 14 2 9 3 14 3 14 3 14 3 14 0 0 2 9 22

Figure 6.10. Number of tool parts per polish location

antler haft wooden haft nr of tool nr of tool % % parts parts poor 0 5 0 19 poor moderate 0 5 0 19 poor 0 1 0 4 moderate 2 6 moderate 22 22 high 1 2 11 7 high moderate 3 3 33 11 high 1 2 11 7 moderate 1 1 11 4 extensive high 1 2 11 7 Total number of tool parts 9 27 Polish development

Polish linkage

Figure 6.11. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category

Polish development and linkage exhibit the same trends as for the reference toolset: wood polish spends longer in a poor development stage (Fig. 6.11) irrespective of the face which is in contact with the haft. For polish morphology, the domed feature of wood polish appears less rapidly than the pitted feature of antler polish (Tables 6). As far as interpretability is concerned, antler haft polish appeared to be systematically interpretable with a high degree of certainty, while there is wider distribution over the different categories for wood-hafted tools. This tendency was visible for the reference toolset, but not in such a marked way. However, only one antler-hafted tool was included. The defined trend for polish extension is only partially confirmed. The antlerhafted tool showed an extension in which the best developed area is located on the outer edge, this compares to the reference toolset. In addition, an extension consisting of both the outer edge and the inner surface was recorded. This implies that antler polish is slightly more extensive than on the reference toolset. No distribution along the microtopography was recorded for antler polish, despite the presence of a ridge25. This feature thus seems more typical for wood polish. Consequently, differences caused by dorsal haft contact 25

Due to the ridge morphology, distribution along the microtopography is often characteristic.

127

are minimal and the identified impact of the haft material on polish formation proves to be irrespective of the face in contact with the haft. Scarring Non-interpretable scarring and scarring which resulted from fractures in the haft and at the haft limit are excluded. The number of damaged tool parts does not significantly differ, but scarring was more frequently categorised as high and extensive on the antler-hafted tool. Tools should, however, also be compared as far as retouch and tool protrusion are concerned. Only the hafted parts of exp. 1/4 and 9/1 remained unretouched. When those two tools are compared, the antler-hafted tool still shows slightly more intense scarring. The reason is that only exp. 9/1 protruded from its haft and was therefore more vulnerable to scarring. The difference in scarring intensity between the two groups is therefore not indicative of the haft material. Scar initiation data cannot be compared, given their absence for wood-hafted tools. For the antler-hafted tool, the importance of narrow initiations is confirmed and the face in contact with the haft does not appear to have suffered any impact. For other attributes, only scars which result from a haft contact or a combined impact are included. For scar termination, trends are the same as for the initial toolset (Fig. 6.12): the majority of scars on antlerhafted tools show an abrupt termination (hinge, step), while these are far fewer on wood-hafted tools. Wood-hafted tools predominantly exhibit a snap or feather termination. Again, the face in contact with the haft does not appear to have an impact. antler haft

wooden haft

Scar termination

nr of tool parts

%

nr of tool parts

%

snap

1

4

3

21

feather

5

21

2

14

hinge

6

25

1

7

step

8

33

2

14

vertical

0

0

0

0

superposition

4

17

6

43

total number

24

14

Figure 6.12. Number recorded per scar termination category

Trends are the same for scar definition. The scars on the antler-hafted tool are preferentially moderately or well defined, while scars on wood-hafted tools have less pronounced definitions. This attribute is usually linked with the scar’s termination: the more abrupt a termination the better defined a scar. The attributes scar size and scar interpretability have not yet resulted in any significant haft material-related patterning, and this does not seem to be the case here either. For scar morphology, the wood-hafted tools tend to show a greater variety, but no major differences can be observed. If data are restricted to those scars for which no binding influence was recorded, the pattern is even more comparable. As far as scar distribution is

128

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

concerned, there is a predominance of an uneven and runtogether pattern. Consequently, the haft material impact on the scarring pattern is irrespective of the face in contact with the haft. Bright spots Bright spots on the ventral face are excluded. Bright spots are clearly more numerous than on the reference toolset, which is a consequence of tool use (see chapter 5). There is only a minor difference in bright spot frequency between wood- and antler-hafted tools: slightly more tool parts show bright spots on the antler-hafted tool. However, for a reliable comparison, all bright spots resulting from a fracture in the haft need to be excluded. The fractures on both exp. 1/2 and exp. 9/1 resulted in numerous bright spots as a result of intense friction with detached scar flakes within the haft (e.g., chapter 3). When such bright spots are excluded, there is still a tendency towards more bright spots on the antler-hafted tool as a result of its slightly more extensive scarring. However, the latter proved to be a result of the stone tool protrusion from the haft, and not too much importance should thus be attached to these differences. Striations; rounding/smoothing Striations are equally rare on this toolset, and again there is a higher concentration of striations on the face in contact with the haft for antler-hafted tools. No rounding or smoothing is observed on the ventral face. 6.1.3

Systematic verification of the impact of haft material: use motion and material worked Several experimental wood-hafted tools can be included, but the number of available antler-hafted tools is more limited. In order to allow for a reliable comparison, an equal number is selected per haft material. Three uses are considered: adzing earth, chiselling wood and scraping schist. Coarse-grained flint and differing use durations are excluded. Six tools are included, three per haft material and two per tool use (Fig. 6.13). 6.1.3.1 Macroscopic analysis Gloss formation in particular needs to be examined as a potential difference between the two haft materials was suggested. The evidence is not conclusive (Table 4.2), but there is again a minor tendency towards more gloss formation on antler-hafted tools. ID

Polish There are no real differences in polish location over the tool (Fig. 6.14). The minor difference for the bulb is a consequence of the lack of a bulb on one of the tools (exp. 9/2). The small difference for the butt was also observed on the reference toolset. Apparently contact with an antler haft more easily leads to distinguishable butt polish. Polish localisation Butt VMedge VMsurf VPbulb VPbutt VPedge VPsurf Total number of tool parts

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 9/2

J

D

LD

Tr

Pe

wood

Exp. 10/2 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 13/8

J J J J J

D D D D D

T T LD T T

A A Tr A A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

wood wood antler antler antler

Haft material antler wood 1 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 16 15

Figure 6.14. Number of relevant tool parts per location

On the reference toolset, the ventral proximal edges were more frequently polished for wood-hafted tools, apparently depending on the protrusion from the haft. Here, an equal number of tools protrude from their hafts for both haft materials (cf. tables 2 and 3.4) and no differences in polish frequency can be observed for the ventral proximal edges. For polish development and linkage, results are more dispersed for antler polish (Fig. 6.15): antler polish is less linked up in an early stage, but it also reached a well-developed and extensive stage. The latter two are located on the bulb and butt of exp. 10/3. While the polish on the bulb of the comparative tool – exp. 10/2 – reached an interpretable stage, it was somewhat less well developed. Both tools show a bulbar scar, but the bulb of exp. 10/3 is far more prominent, which explains the difference. Overall, however, the pattern confirms the evidence of the reference toolset, although the dispersion over the categories for wood-hafted tools was greater and the wood polish appeared to remain in a poorer development stage longer than antler polish. The typical morphology for a particular haft material appears only when polishes are moderately well developed (Tables 6). In the reference toolset, only one wood-hafted tool was an exception to this pattern. For brightness, the Haft contact

Activity

H:min: sec

leather

ventral

adzing

1:00:00

leather leather leather leather leather

ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral

chiselling scraping adzing chiselling scraping

0:30:00 0:20:00 1:00:00 0:25:00 0:30:00

Haft Bindings Material

HT

Figure 6.13. Experimental details

6.1.3.2 Microscopic analysis

Material Tooltype worked earth, stone, scraper plants, roots oak scraper schist scraper earth, plants blade oak scraper schist scraper

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Haft material antler wood nr of tool nr of tool % parts parts poor poor 5 0 26 moderate 5 10 26 moderate moderate 6 7 32 high moderate 2 0 11 extensive extensive 1 0 5 Total number of tool parts 19 17

Polish development

Polish linkage

Polish extension % 0 59 41 0 0

Figure 6.15. Number of relevant tool parts per polish development and linkage category

pattern remains the same; typical morphologies are bright while the smoother uncharacteristic versions are moderate to bright. For polish interpretability the same general pattern appears (Fig. 6.16). Most wood haft polish can be interpreted with a low to a high degree of certainty, while the interpretation level of antler haft polish varies more. Haft material antler wood Polish interpretability nr of tool nr of tool % parts parts not interpretable 7 3 35 low certainty 5 6 25 moderate certainty 1 2 5 high certainty 3 6 15 certain 4 0 20 Total number of tool parts 20 17

only border/ridge - low presence only border/ridge - moderate presence only surface - low presence only surface - moderate presence only surface - extensive presence along microtopography low presence along microtopography moderate presence border and inner surface low presence border - and inner surface moderate presence Total number of tool parts

129

Haft material antler wood nr of tool nr of tool % % parts parts 3

16

3

18

1

5

0

0

9

47

3

18

2

11

2

12

1

5

1

6

1

5

2

12

2

11

3

18

0

0

1

6

0

0

2

12

19

17

Figure 6.17. Number of relevant tool parts per polish extension category

% 18 35 12 35 0

Figure 6.16. Number of tool parts per interpretability category

The polish extension evidence is again obvious (Fig. 6.17). In particular the distribution between the first two and the last two categories is important. An antler polish is often present only on the outer border or ridge and, in cases where the tool’s edges protruded from their haft, only on the surface (this explains why this percentage is high). As stated earlier, the potential contact area with a wooden haft is slightly higher, given the more penetrable nature of wood. This is shown in the results: the polish is more intrusive and shows distribution along the microtopography, or on both the outer edge and the inner surface. This conforms to the expected trends and makes it clear that the polish extension is important for distinguishing between wood and antler, certainly when the polish morphology itself is not very obvious. Scarring Non-interpretable damage and scars caused by binding contact are excluded. Three scar attributes showed differences earlier: scar initiation, termination and definition. The amount of scarring (interpreted as partially or entirely caused by the haft material) is greater on antler-hafted tools

than on wood-hafted tools (Fig. 6.18), on the dorsal proximal edges in particular. Tool protrusion or retouch does not account for this, since these are comparable between the two groups. The scarring intensity also tends to be greater for antler-hafted tools (Fig. 6.18). Haft material antler wood Scarring intensity nr of tool nr of tool % parts parts low 2 1 13 moderate 6 4 38 high 5 2 31 extensive 3 1 19 Total number of tool parts 16 8

% 13 50 25 13

Figure 6.18. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category

For scar initiation, the previously defined pattern is not confirmed (Fig. 6.19). The impact of bindings in the case of wood-hafted tools can be confirmed, but the scar initiation variety on wood-hafted tools has reduced significantly. In addition, narrow initiations, thought to be characteristic of antler, are more numerous. The antler-hafted tools are more comparable to the reference toolset. The scar termination is more significant (Fig. 6.20) and earlier trends are confirmed. Feather-terminating scars are most frequent on wood-hafted tools, while scars with more abrupt terminations (hinge, step) and/or superposed scars are far more frequent on antler-hafted tools. Tool use does not appear to influence the identified haft material impact.

130

Scar initiation

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Binding influence

(missing)

no yes wide no no narrow yes no dip yes curved yes twisted no Total number

antler nr of tool parts 4 7 3 4 0 1 1 3 1 24

% 17 29 13 17 0 4 4 13 4

wood nr of tool parts 4 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10

% 40 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 0

Figure 6.19. Number recorded per scar initiation category26

Scar termination feather hinge step vertical superposition Total number

antler haft nr of tool parts 6 11 13 2 9 41

% 15 27 32 5 22

wooden haft nr of tool parts 6 1 4 2 2 15

% 40 7 27 13 13

Figure 6.20. Number recorded per scar termination category

one

Bright spot size

small small few moderate small moderate moderate large many large Total number

antler haft nr of tool % parts 0 0 2 17 3 25 1 8 3 25 1 8 2 17 12

wooden haft nr of tool % parts 1 13 1 13 1 13 0 0 5 63 0 0 0 0 8

Figure 6.21. Number of tool parts per bright spot amount and size category

antler haft wooden haft Bright spot Bright spot nr of tool nr of tool development linkage % % parts parts poor moderate 1 0 8 0 moderate 7 4 58 50 moderate high 0 3 0 38 moderate 1 1 8 13 well high 1 0 8 0 extensive complete 2 0 17 0 Total number 12 8 Figure 6.22. Number of tool parts per bright spot development and linkage category

For scar definition, a potentially valuable though unobvious trend could be discerned based on the reference toolset. While again not very obvious, trends are nevertheless confirmed: the majority of scars on antler-hafted tools are well defined, while the majority of scars on wood-hafted tools are moderately defined (Tables 6). Tool use has no effect. 26

Consequently, tool use only partially counteracts the identified effect of the haft material on the process of scar formation, for scar initiation in particular. Bright spots The rarity of bright spots on the reference toolset did not allow one to discern consistent trends. Here, bright spots are more frequent on antler-hafted tools and they tend to be fewer per tool part and smaller on wood-hafted tools (Fig. 6.21). Large bright spots are absent on the wood-hafted tools. While the evidence is not yet clear, some tendencies are present. Data concerning bright spot development and linkage provide additional evidence (Fig. 6.22). The majority of bright spots are moderately developed and linked, irrespective of the haft material. However, none of the wood-hafted 26

Amount

More than one scar initiation category can be recorded per tool part, which explains why the total number does not necessarily compare to the total number of damaged tool parts. The same principle goes for other trace attributes like scar termination, definition, etc.

tools show bright spots which are well or extensively developed and highly linked; only the antler-hafted tools do. The material responsible for bright spot production (flint or haft material) does not differ between the two haft material groups. Striations; rounding/smoothing Striations are again rare, and even almost completely absent on wood-hafted tools. Only one rounded zone can be observed on a tool part in contact with a haft: the butt of exp. 10/3. 6.1.4

Systematic verification of haft material impact: haft type Male and male split hafts are considered in order to examine whether the haft material impact remains the same as in juxtaposed arrangements. Of course, the kind of contact between stone tool and haft differs significantly as a result of the haft type, a factor which complicates the verification of the haft material impact. Nine tools were examined which were used to groove (see toolset 1) or adze wood (see toolset 2), next to tools used for scraping and chiselling (see chapter 5) (Fig. 6.23). The hafting material remains constant: only wooden and antler hafts with – if relevant – fixation by means of leather bindings are included. In addition, only fine-grained tools with a direct haft contact are considered. Exp. 26/4 is a special case, given the presence of a tang and thus an intensively retouched hafted part.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 10/30

MS

D

T

A

Pe

Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 10/13 Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50

MS MS MS M MS MS MS

D D D D D D D

T T T T T T T

A A A A A A A

Pa Pa Pa Pe Pa Pa Pa

Exp. 26/4

M

D

T

A

Pe

131

H:min: Material Further Haft Haft Tooltype Activity Bindings sec worked fixation contact material wooden wood leather both chiselling 0:30:38 wood scraper sticks wood leather 0 both grooving 1:00:00 wood burin wood leather 0 both grooving 0:58:00 wood burin wood leather 0 both grooving 1:00:00 wood burin antler 0 twigs dorsal chiselling 0:32:42 wood scraper antler leather 0 both grooving 1:00:00 wood burin antler leather 0 both grooving 1:00:00 wood burin antler leather 0 both grooving 1:00:00 wood burin tanged antler 0 0 both grooving 1:10:00 wood burin

Figure 6.23. Experimental details

6.1.4.1 Polish The polish evidence is not expected to be very obvious: aside from morphology, differences are expected only for polish extension and to a lesser extent for polish development versus linkage and morphology. On the reference toolset, the number of polished tool parts was higher on wood-hafted tools. This is not confirmed, even when only male split hafted tools are compared (Fig. 6.24): male split wood-hafted tools have an average of 10 polished tool parts per tool, while this is nearly 9 for male split antler-hafted tools. Next, a polish concentration is expected on the proximal edge of the face in contact with the haft. Given the haft type, two concentrations should be observed, one per face. This proves to be the case for the male split antlerhafted tools (i.e., ventral proximal edges), but not for the other tools. The greatest polish frequency on wood-hafted tools is located on the ventral bulb and surface and on the dorsal ridges. The absence of polish on the dorsal medial edge of wood-hafted tools and on the ventral medial edges of antler-hafted tools (male split haft only) is notable. antler haft

wooden haft

male male split male split Polish localisation number of number of number of % % % tool parts tool parts tool parts

No differences in polish development can be observed between the two haft materials. Most polishes are moderately developed. On a morphological level, the pitted appearance of antler polish appears more quickly than the domed feature of wood polish, while the scenario was the opposite for the reference toolset. On the other hand, antler polish shows a pitted appearance more frequently than wood polish: 53% to 40% (cf. 36% to 30% for the reference toolset). The expected trends cannot be confirmed for polish interpretability (Fig. 6.25): wood polish interpretability increased in comparison to the reference toolset, while the opposite is true for tools hafted in an antler male split haft. For the male haft, the pattern is more or less comparable to the reference toolset. The haft type thus has a negative influence on the identified haft material impact on polish formation. Polish intepretability

antler male haft

antler male split haft

wooden male split haft

nr of tool nr of tool nr of tool % % % parts parts parts

not interpretable

5

low certainty

6

19

7

23

4

9

moderate certainty

3

10

9

30

14

33

16

1

3

2

5

high certainty

5

16

12

40

6

14

Butt

1

4

2

8

3

8

certain

12

39

1

3

17

40

DMedge

2

8

2

8

0

0

Total number

31

DMridge

2

8

2

8

4

10

DMsurf

2

8

2

8

2

5

DPbutt

2

8

3

12

2

5

DPedge

2

8

2

8

1

3

DPridge

2

8

2

8

4

10

DPsurf

2

8

3

12

3

8

VMedge

2

8

0

0

3

8

VMsurf

2

8

0

0

4

10 10

VPbulb

2

8

2

8

4

VPbutt

1

4

1

4

3

8

VPedge

2

8

3

12

3

8

VPsurf

2

8

2

8

4

10

Total number

26

26

Figure 6.24. Number recorded per relevant tool part

40

30

43

Figure 6.25. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category

Trends are also not confirmed for polish extension (Fig. 6.26), probably due to the influence of the ridge (i.e., on which distributions along the microtopography are more likely). If data from the ridge are excluded, the number of tool parts showing a distribution along the microtopography decreases by 10% for antler-hafted tools, and only 5% for wood-hafted tools. This indicates that the haft type reduces the haft material impact on the polish extension.

132

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

antler male haft Polish extension

only border/ridge low presence only border/ridge moderate presence only surface - low presence only surface moderate presence only surface extensive presence along microtopography low presence along microtopography moderate presence along microtopography extensive presence border and inner surface - low presence border and inner surface - moderate presence Total number of tool parts

antler male split haft nr of tool % parts

wooden split haft nr of tool parts

%

3

3

7

1

3

0

0

16

3

10

6

14

6

19

8

27

12

28

1

3

1

3

4

9

6

19

6

20

12

28

3

10

6

20

4

9

1

3

0

0

0

0

4

13

3

10

0

0

4

13

1

3

2

5

nr of tool parts

%

1

3

1

0

0

5

31

30

43

Figure 6.26. Number of tool parts per polish extension category

To conclude, the haft type largely interferes with the haft material impact on polish formation. Both variables thus need to be considered together if hafting polish is to be interpreted correctly. After all, the haft type significantly alters the contact between stone tool and haft, and it determines what influence stone tool morphology can have on this contact. 6.1.4.2 Scarring Scar initiation, termination and definition need to be examined in the main. Scars which were interpreted as due to binding impact are excluded, so most of the scars on the male split hafted tools cannot be taken into account. For both haft materials, four tool parts can be considered (for three tools per haft material), which contrasts with 24 tool parts for the two male-hafted tools. For scar initiation, the inferred pattern is confirmed (Fig. 6.27). Narrow initiations occur only on tools which were hafted in an antler haft. All narrow initiations are associated with a male haft, as a result of the greater pressure a male haft exerts on a tool’s edges. For scar termination, the inferred pattern is for the first time contradicted (Fig. 6.28). The scar terminations on antler- and wood-hafted tools no longer differ, aside from the fact that superposing scars are missing on wood-hafted

Scarring initiation wide narrow dip curved (missing) Total number

antler haft nr of tool parts 12 10 1 1 12 36

% 33 28 3 3 33

wooden haft nr of tool parts 3 0 2 0 0 5

% 60 0 40 0 0

Figure 6.27. Number of tool parts per scar initiation category

Scar termination feather hinge step superposition Total number

antler haft nr of tool parts 14 6 25 11 56

% 25 11 45 20

wooden haft nr of tool parts 2 1 3 0 6

% 33 17 50 0

Figure 6.28. Number of tool parts per scar termination category

tools. The poor scarring on wood-hafted tools is no doubt responsible. Scars on antler-hafted tools remain better defined in comparison to those on wood-hafted tools even though the pattern is somewhat less obvious, given the limited scarring on wood-hafted tools. Consequently, the haft type does not counteract the influence of the haft material on the scarring pattern, but reduces it as far as scar termination and definition are concerned. This is no doubt a result of the influence the haft type itself has on the scarring formation process (see infra). 6.1.4.3 Bright spots Bright spots are rare, except on exp. 10/13. Bright spots on antler-hafted tools tend to be more frequent and larger, better developed, more linked up and more extensive (Tables 6). This confirms earlier observations. 6.1.4.4 Striations and rounding/smoothing Striations were observed only on antler-hafted tools. This conforms to the expected trend. There is a predominance of perpendicularly orientated striations as on the reference toolset. No rounding or smoothing could be observed. 6.1.5 Extrapolation to other haft materials Bone hafts are dealt with in order to extrapolate the results from antler and wooden hafts. Only a few bone hafts were included in the experimental programme: seven grooving tools are considered, divided between two hafting arrangements (Fig. 6.29). Only relevant data are included. 6.1.5.1 Polish Polish development and linkage result in exactly the same pattern as on the antler-hafted tools of the reference toolset (Fig. 6.30). Most polish is categorised as poor to moderately well developed and moderately linked.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 19/3A Exp. 19/6A Exp. 26/1 Exp. 26/2 Exp. 26/3 Exp. 26/5 Exp. 26/6

J J M M M M M

D D D D D D D

T T T T T T T

A A A A A A A

Pe Pa Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Haft Bindings material bone leather bone leather bone 0 bone 0 bone 0 bone 0 bone 0

Haft contact dorsal dorsal both both both both both

Activity grooving scraping grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

H:min: sec 1:19:00 0:50:00 0:05:00 2:10:00 0:30:00 0:05:00 0:45:00

Material worked dry deer antler soaked antler fresh wood fresh wood wood taxus wood deer antler

133

Tooltype burin borer tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin

Figure 6.29. Experimental details (based on Table 1.1)

Polish development Polish linkage nr of tool parts low 9 poor moderate 21 low 2 moderate moderate 30 moderate 1 high high 3 extensive high 1 Total number 67

% 13 31 3 45 1 4 1

Figure 6.30. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category

For polish morphology and brightness, too, the pattern is exactly the same as on the antler-hafted tools. There are minor differences in polish interpretability. In comparison to antler-hafted tools, polish was less frequently interpreted with certainty (Fig. 6.31, cf. Fig. 6.5). Polish interpretability not interpretable low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number

nr of tool parts 16 16 14 14 7 67

% 24 24 21 21 10

Figure 6.31. Number of tool parts per polish interpretability category

The polish extension data are also very comparable to those for the antler-hafted tools of the reference toolset (Fig. 6.32, cf. Fig. 6.6). Distribution along the microtopography is rare, but if it occurs it is generally concentrated on the ridge. Consequently, the impact of a bone haft on polish formation compares to that of an antler haft. 6.1.5.2 Scarring Insufficient data concerning scar initiation are available for the examined tools. Scar terminations are again the same as on the antler-hafted tools of the reference toolset: abrupt terminations (hinge, step) and superposing scars tend to predominate (Fig. 6.33). The same goes for scar definition, where moderately to well defined scars predominate (Tables 6).

Polish extension nr of tool parts only border/ridge - low presence 8 only border/ridge - moderate 3 presence only surface - low presence 14 only surface - moderate presence 11 along microtopography - low 4 presence along microtopography - moderate 4 presence border and inner surface - low 9 presence border and inner surface - moderate 12 presence border and inner surface - extensive 2 presence Total number of tool parts 67

% 12 4 21 16 6 6 13 18 3

Figure 6.32. Number of tool parts per polish extension category

Scar termination feather hinge step vertical superposition Total number

nr of tool parts 28 12 41 5 19 105

% 27 11 39 5 18

Figure 6.33. Number recorded per scar termination category

6.1.5.3 Bright spots Only a limited number of bright spots was formed (12 tool parts), but this is significantly more than on wood-hafted tools. As on the reference toolset, few bright spots occur per tool part and they are small to moderate in size (Tables 6). Striation orientation parallel oblique perpendicular divers Total number

nr of tool parts 4 4 6 1 15

Figure 6.34. Number recorded per striation orientation

% 27 27 40 7

134

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Trace attribute POLISH polish morphology typical morphology polish development polish interpretability polish extension

Hard animal matter

Wood

cf. usewear appears at moderate development quicker moderately developed slightly better interpretable low presence tends to be concentrated on outer edge/ridge

cf. usewear appears at poor development longer poorly developed slightly less interpretable moderate presence tends to follow microtopography

narrow = present abrupt moderate to well

narrow = absent non-abrupt ill to moderate

few to moderate moderate

few small

few to moderate perpendicular

few not preferential

insignificant

insignificant

SCARRING scar initiation scar termination scar definition BRIGHT SPOTS bright spot amount bright spot size STRIATIONS striation amount striation orientation ROUNDING

Figure 6.35. Distinctive trace attributes per haft material

6.1.5.4 Striations The striation pattern also compares to that on antler-hafted tools. Striations are not frequent, but still more common than on wood-hafted tools. A perpendicular orientation predominates (Fig. 6.34). 6.1.5.5 Rounding/smoothing No rounding or smoothing was observed. 6.1.6 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria The haft material appeared to have an identifiable impact on the process of hafting trace formation, in particular for polish and scarring. This influence is irrespective of the face in contact with the haft and the tool’s use, but not of the haft type. In particular for polish, the patterning largely disappeared. The impact of a bone haft proved to be similar to that of an antler haft. This confirms the difficulty of distinguishing between the two on a use-wear level. Elaboration of the experimental collection towards more antler and bone hafts may obviously add more conclusive data for some aspects. Based on the experimental data, a few general criteria are proposed which allow one to distinguish between different haft materials (Fig. 6.35). Hafts made out of hard animal matter (bone and antler) are compared to wooden hafts.

ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/16

J J J

D D D

T T T

A A A

Pe Pe Pe

Figure 6.36. Experimental details

6.2

INFLUENCE OF BINDING MATERIAL ON THE FORMATION PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES

Different kinds of bindings can be used for fixing a tool in or on a haft. Leather bindings have already frequently been mentioned, but intestines, sinew, linen, limewood, etc. can also be used (see chapter 2). The hafting trace intensity may be influenced by the way in which these bindings are applied, i.e. wet versus dry, as wet bindings may shrink upon drying. This may ensure a good fixation, but it may also hamper trace production due to the more limited friction in the haft. These issues are examined below. 6.2.1

Exploration and identification of binding material impact Both animal and vegetal bindings are investigated, within the limits of the reference collection (i.e., other variables have to remain constant). Three scrapers are examined: hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft, fixed with bindings, and used to chisel wood for approximately 30 minutes. There is unfortunately only one tool per examined binding material: leather, vegetal bindings and wet leather (Fig. 6.36), but more tools are included later in this chapter.

H:min: Material Binding Haft Haft Tooltype Activity Bindings sec worked direction contact material wood leather (2) ventral chiselling 0:30:00 oak scraper wood linen 2 ventral chiselling 0:30:30 ash scraper wood wet leather 2 ventral chiselling 0:30:10 ash scraper

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

6.2.1.1 Macroscopic analysis The tool hafted with vegetal bindings is most extensively damaged (Table 4.1), but all three tools show macroscopic scars at the haft limit; exp. 10/2 and 10/7 have them on both faces. Gloss is present in particular on the ventral face, but this evidence should be ignored as it is the face which was in contact with the haft. The binding contact did not lead to extensive gloss formation. 6.2.1.2 Microscopic analysis Polish There are no major differences in the location of binding polish on the dorsal face. Only on the leather-hafted tool is polish absent on the dorsal medial ridge and surface, while there are minor concentrations on the dorsal proximal ridge and edge. The other binding materials resulted in more dispersed polish. The differences are, however, insignificant and mainly concern the polish morphology and development. The polish morphology depends on principles known for use-wear: vegetal bindings result in a smooth polish, while leather bindings result in a rough polish. In comparison to use-wear, standard leather bindings lead to a slightly brighter polish. Polish from wet leather bindings remains dull. Wet leather bindings result in poorer developed polishes than other binding materials (Fig. 6.37). Vegetal bindings tend to lead to better-developed polishes. Even though only three tools are included, similar observations were made on other experimental tools which were hafted with bindings. leather wet leather vegetal Polish Polish nr of tool nr of tool nr of tool development linkage % % % parts parts parts poor moderate

poor

1

20

4

67

0

0

moderate

3

60

2

33

3

50

moderate

1

20

0

0

3

50

Total number

5

6

6

135

faces is considered, given the difficulty in separating haft and binding-induced scarring (see supra). The scarring does not differ in location between binding materials. Scarring intensity proves to be correlated with the presence of retouch: exp. 10/17 shows most scarring because of an unretouched hafted part, while exp. 10/2 shows the least intense scarring due to an intensively retouched hafted part (Table 3.3). These differences in the presence of retouch hamper conclusions on the potential impact of the binding material on scarring intensity. Some differences in scar morphology can be noted (Fig. 6.38). Scalar scars are present on all tools in almost equal amounts, but trapezoidal scars are more extensive on exp. 10/2. By contrast, sliced scars are more frequent on exp. 10/16 and particularly on exp. 10/7. Crushing is most pronounced on exp. 10/16. Retouch only partly accounts for these differences. The absence of retouch on the hafted part of exp. 10/16 certainly contributed to the formation of sliced scars and crushing, but sliced scars are most extensive on the retouched exp. 10/7. On exp. 10/7 only the retouched tool part (dorsal proximal edge) lacks sliced scars. All crushing is located round the haft limit. The harder nature of wet leather bindings (when dried) is responsible for the more extensive crushing around the haft limit. Consequently, sliced scars are most frequent for vegetal bindings, while crushing is most frequent for wet leather bindings. Frequent “sliced into scalar” scars occur on exp. 10/7, while they are absent on exp. 10/16 and rare on exp. 10/2. Exp. 10/2 (leather) total nr % scalar 8 50 trapezoidal 6 38 sliced 1 6 crushing 1 6 Total number 16 Scar morphology

Exp. 10/16 (wet leather) total nr % 7 47 4 27 2 13 2 13 15

Exp. 10/7 (vegetal) total nr % 7 47 3 20 5 33 0 0 15

Figure 6.38. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category

Figure 6.37. Number of tool parts per polish development category

For polish extension, the edge and ridge binding polish for vegetal bindings tends to follow the microtopography, while this is less so for (wet and) leather bindings. The latter tend to be either limited to the outer edge (for wet leather) or to the outer edge and inner surface (leather). This difference is a result of the harder nature of wet leather bindings once they are dry, which results in less intrusive polishes. Vegetal bindings result in the best-interpretable polish, while wet leather bindings result in a polish which is generally less interpretable than a polish caused by standard leather binding. This is due to the slower formation of a wet leather polish. Scarring All non-binding induced scarring (e.g., due to fractures, located on the butt) was omitted. The scarring of both

Wide initiations are generally dominant (Fig. 6.39), but particularly so on exp. 10/2. The same tool also shows frequent narrow initiations, while these are rare or absent on the other two tools. The latter two tools show more frequent straight into curved, curved and twisted initiations, which is a result of the higher number of sliced and sliced into scalar scars. Whether it is valid to state that narrow initiations Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/7 (leather) (wet leather) (vegetal) total nr % total nr % total nr % wide 7 7 8 50 35 31 narrow 5 1 0 36 5 0 straight into curved 1 1 5 7 5 19 curved 1 6 7 7 30 27 twisted 0 5 6 0 25 23 Total number 14 20 26 Scar initiation

Figure 6.39. Number of tool parts per scar initiation category

136

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

tend to be associated with leather bindings will have to be examined in more detail. Scar terminations are generally quite similar, apart from the occurrence of superposing scars on exp. 10/2 (Table 6.10). This may prove to be significant for the identification of the binding material used. Scar sizes and depths differ slightly: very large scars are present only on tools hafted with leather and wet leather bindings, while deep scars occur only on tools hafted with vegetal or wet leather bindings. Scars tend to be somewhat better defined in the case of vegetal and wet leather bindings. Scars tend to be more abrupt on the tool hafted with vegetal bindings. Scar distribution in distinct patches is absent in the case of wet leather bindings, while continuous scars occur (be it rarely) only on tools hafted with leather or wet leather bindings. Too few special scar patterns occurred to be significant. There are no differences in the scar interpretability between binding materials. Bright spots Bright spots are rare on the dorsal faces. They are most numerous on exp. 10/16 but these are all linked with the fracture. Only on one tool part of exp. 10/2 could relevant bright spots be noted. Striations Striations are also rare. Relevant striations occur only on exp. 10/2 and 10/7. There is a minor tendency towards more striations on tools hafted with vegetal bindings, while striations were absent for the tool hafted with wet leather bindings. Rounding/smoothing No rounding occurred on any of the tools. 6.2.2

Systematic verification of binding material impact: dorsal haft contact Scrapers with dorsal haft contact are included (Fig. 6.40), all of which were used for scraping different materials. Given differing use durations, the effects of variations in material penetrability are somewhat compensated for (see chapter 5). Four tools are included. One was hafted with fresh intestines, which shrink upon drying and are thus comparable in effect to wet leather bindings. 6.2.2.1 Macroscopic analysis Scarring is poor but the slightly more intense scarring associated with vegetal bindings is nevertheless confirmed (Table 4.1). Scars at the haft limit were observed only on exp. 10/5 (ventral) and 10/32 (dorsal). ID

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Exp. 10/5 Exp. 16/8

J J

D D

LD T

Tr A

Pe Pe

Exp. 20/3

J

D

T

A

Pe

Exp. 10/32

J

D

LD

Tr

Pe

Figure 6.40. Experimental details

No ventral gloss was formed apart from some caused by a fracture. Combined with the inconclusive evidence of the previous toolset, it appears that gloss formation is not a valid criterion for determining the binding material used. 6.2.2.2 Microscopic analysis Polish On exp. 10/5, the bindings exceeded the dorsal haft limit, resulting in binding contact in the medial zone of the dorsal face. On all tools but exp. 16/8, the dorsal edges were in contact with bindings as a result of protrusion from the haft and stone tool morphology. These tool parts are omitted in order to allow for comparability with the previous toolset. Only on exp. 10/32 are a reasonable number of polished tool parts observed (5) (Tables 6). On exp. 16/8, polish is rare (1), while it is moderately present on exp. 10/5 and 20/3 (4 each). There are no significant differences in location, while identified trends are confirmed for polish development and linkage. Polish resulting from contact with intestines is predominantly poorly developed and barely linked, while vegetal bindings predominantly result in a moderate and well-linked polish development. Leather bindings fall between the two. The polish extension data also confirm the trends observed. Polish resulting from intestine contact is more limited to the outer edge, while vegetal binding polish tends to follow the microtopography. Leather polish again falls between the two with extensions on the outer edge and inner surface. Also the polish interpretability pattern is confirmed: intestine polish tends to be interpretable with low certainty, while both the other polishes can be interpreted better. Scarring A distinction between potential hafting scars and intentional retouch was difficult to make, in particular on exp. 16/8 and exp. 20/3, so scarring may be underrepresented. The most intense scarring tends to be located on tools fixed with leather or intestines, irrespective of retouch. Scalar scars dominate scar morphologies, only for intestines are they absent and replaced by trapezoidal scars (Fig. 6.41). Trapezoidal scars are absent for leather-fixed tools, contradicting their more frequent occurrence on leather-fixed tools in the reference toolset and their potential distinctive value. The more extensive nature of sliced scars on vegetal-fixed tools is confirmed. The large number of nibbling scars on the tool fixed with intestines probably compensates for the lack of scalar scars. Nibbling scars are too small to attribute to a specific morphological category (see chapter 2). In contrast to the reference toolset, crushing is not most extensive

Binding Haft Haft Activity Bindings direction contact material wood leather 2 dorsal scraping wood leather 2 dorsal scraping fresh 2 dorsal scraping wood intestines wood linen 1 dorsal scraping

H:min: Material Tooltype sec worked 0:30:00 oak scraper 1:10:00 fresh pig hide scraper dry deer hide scraper 0:43:13 + ochre 0:31:22 oak scraper

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

on the wet leather-fixed tool, but it is indeed absent on all vegetal-fixed tools. leather total nr % scalar 5 50 trapezoidal 0 0 irregular 1 10 sliced 0 0 nibbling 0 0 crushing 4 40 Total number 10 Scar morphology

intestines total nr % 0 0 3 43 0 0 1 14 2 29 1 14 7

distinct patches on tools fixed with wet leather bindings/ intestines is contradicted. Scars on tools fixed with vegetal and leather bindings tend to be better interpretable than for intestines.

vegetal total nr % 4 33 1 8 1 8 3 25 3 25 0 0 12

Bright spots Bright spots caused by the impact of bindings (i.e., located on the ventral face) are again rare, though present for all binding materials. Striations Striations are also again rare and indistinct for a particular binding material. The minor tendency towards more striations on the vegetal-fixed tool in the reference toolset cannot be confirmed as striations are absent on exp. 10/32.

Figure 6.41. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category

Details concerning the morphology were recorded for only one tool part given the later addition of this attribute. Sliced into scalar scars thus prove to be present on the vegetalfixed tool, as was the case for the reference toolset. Too few data are also available for scar initiation. Scar terminations are again similar between binding materials (Fig. 6.42). Superposing scars occur mainly on leather-fixed tools next to those fixed with intestines. The vertical terminations on the vegetal-fixed tool are a result of its high number of sliced scars. leather total nr % feather 5 42 hinge 0 0 step 3 25 vertical 0 0 superposition 4 33 Total number 12

intestines total nr % 2 25 0 0 4 50 1 13 1 13 8

Scar termination

Rounding No relevant rounding was observed. 6.2.3

Systematic verification of binding material impact: use motion and material worked The impact of tool use was partially tested in the previous section given that scraping tools instead of chiselling tools were dealt with. Nevertheless, a few other tool uses are included in order to elaborate the toolset. Ten tools are included divided over four use motions (Fig. 6.43). Per use motion, there are at least two tools, each hafted with different binding materials. Use durations are comparable per use motion. Only fine-grained flint is considered and only exp. 16/5 had a dorsal haft contact.

vegetal total nr % 6 43 1 7 5 36 2 14 0 0 14

6.2.3.1 Polish No differences were observed in the location of binding polish over the hafted tool part. Obviously, the binding polish of exp. 16/5 is present on the opposite face in comparison with the other tools, but the overall distribution remains the same. The poorest developed binding polishes are again formed on tools fixed with wet leather bindings or intestines (Fig. 6.44), while the best-developed binding polishes are again formed on tools fixed with vegetal bindings. Animal binding polish links up more quickly. For the polish extension, polish resulting from wet leather or intestine contact is again more limited to the outer edge, except for

Figure 6.42. Number of tool parts per scar termination category

Scar sizes and depths are not distinctive. For scar definition, vegetal bindings and intestines again tend to result in better-defined scars than leather bindings. The evidence for scar distribution is not obvious, but a potential lack of

ID Exp. 4/5

137

H:min: sec

Worked material

HT

HM

TP

TD

AP

Haft material

Bindings

Haft contact

Activity

J

D

LD

Tr

Pe

wood

leather

ventral

adzing

1:00:00 earth and grass flake-adze

drilling

0:20:00

Tooltype

Exp. 14/12

J

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

ventral

Exp. 19/5A

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

ventral

grooving 1:00:00

Exp. 10/29

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

ventral

scraping

Exp. 22/2

J

D

T

A

Pa

wood

wet leather

ventral

drilling

0:30:00

fresh bone

drillbit

Exp. 22/3

J

D

T

A

Pa

wood

intestines

ventral

drilling

0:15:00

fresh bone

drillbit

Exp. 10/24

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

wet leather

ventral

scraping

0:30:54

oak

scraper

Exp. 9/4

J

D

LD

Tr

Pe

wood

lime tree

ventral

adzing

4:00:00

earth, plants

scraper

Exp. 16/5

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

lime tree

dorsal

grooving 2:00:00

Exp. 16/9

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

linen

ventral

scraping

Figure 6.43. Experimental details

0:30:00

1:15:00

bone

borer

dry deer antler

burin

oak

scraper

antler

burin

dry wood

scraper

138

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

some better-developed ones which were distributed along the microtopography. Vegetal binding polish is dominantly distributed along the microtopography, while leather binding polish is somewhat varied in extension: both along the microtopography and on the outer edge and inner surface. Polish Polish development linkage poor poor moderate poor moderate moderate high moderate high high extensive high Total number

leather total nr 0 11 2 6 1 0 3 0 23

vegetal

% total nr 2 0 4 48 0 9 26 10 1 4 1 0 2 13 2 0 22

% 9 18 0 45 5 5 9 9

wet leather / intestines total nr % 6 35 5 29 0 0 3 18 0 0 3 18 0 0 0 0 17

Figure 6.44. Number of tool parts per polish development and linkage category

The best interpretable polishes are again observed on tools fixed with vegetal bindings, while the least certainty is generally possible for those associated with wet leather or intestines, even though some well-interpretable polishes occur. The polish characteristics thus correspond to earlier observations and tool use has no impact on the distinctive traits identified. 6.2.3.2 Scarring Non-interpretable scarring and scarring of the butt are omitted. Tools hafted with vegetal bindings have the lowest number of damaged tool parts, despite their limited retouch. The number of damaged tool parts is comparable for the other tools. Scarring intensity is comparable between tools, but the highest percentage of tool parts showing poor scarring concerns tools fixed with vegetal bindings. The scar morphology data are somewhat different from those for the previous toolsets (Fig. 6.45): sliced scars are lacking on tools fixed with vegetal bindings, while crushing is important. Both changes are probably the result of the retouch of practically all hafted edges (Table 3.3). Other issues are confirmed: a relatively large number of sliced scars is present on tools fixed with wet leather / intestines, some of Scar morphology scalar trapezoidal triangular irregular sliced crushing Total number

leather total nr 21 9 1 3 2 3 39

% 54 23 3 8 5 8

wet leather / intestines total nr % 20 50 9 23 0 0 2 5 7 18 2 5 40

vegetal total nr 10 4 0 0 0 3 17

Figure 6.45. Number recorded per scar morphology category

% 59 24 0 0 0 18

which are “sliced into scalar” scars; and for the scalar and trapezoidal scars the percentages nicely correspond with those for the reference toolset. The scar initiation evidence is affirmative given the association of curved initiations with binding scars (Fig. 6.46). The high percentage of curved initiations for vegetalfixed tools, despite the absence of the more typical sliced scars due to retouching, is interesting. This implies that earlier observations are in fact not contradicted. The general presence of wide and narrow initiations proves their insignificance for distinguishing between binding materials. Scar initiation wide narrow dip straight into curve curved twisted Total number

leather

wet leather / intestines total nr % 18 38 2 4 3 6

total nr 12 2 0

% 50 8 0

2

8

5

2 6 24

8 25

10 10 48

vegetal total nr 8 3 0

% 50 19 0

10

0

0

21 21

5 0 16

31 0

Figure 6.46. Number recorded per scar initiation category

Scar terminations, including superposing scars, do not prove distinctive. Superposing scars were previously absent for vegetal-fixed tools, while they are present now. The binding material again has no impact on scar size and depth, or on scar definition and distribution. For scar interpretability, scars on tools fixed with wet leather / intestines do not prove to be less interpretable. Consequently, the number of potentially distinctive traits has reduced significantly and only the scar morphology and initiation have a distinctive value. The binding material has no significant impact on scar characteristics, as it does not prove to be independent of tool use. 6.2.4

Systematic verification of binding material impact: hafting arrangement Given the limited potential contact between stone tool and bindings in a male split arrangement, no conclusive evidence is expected. Polish was frequently observed to be very limited on a tool’s edges in this kind of arrangement, and often caused by haft contact instead of binding contact. It thus seems pointless to include detailed data for male split arrangements. 6.2.5 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria The most significant distinctive criteria per binding material are summarised (Fig. 6.47). As stated, polish is most important, while scarring merely serves as supporting evidence. It is evident from this figure that wet leather bindings and intestines lead to the poorest polish development. This is a consequence of their shrinking upon drying, resulting in a stronger fixation and less friction.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Trace attribute POLISH polish morphology polish development polish linkage polish extension polish interpretability SCARRING scar morphology * sliced scars * crushing scar intiation * straight into curve * curved * twisted scar termination * superposition scar definition

139

Leather bindings

Wet leather / intestines

Vegetal bindings

cf. usewear, but slightly brighter tends to be moderate to well tends to be well several extensions, preferentially border and inner surface tends to be moderate

cf. usewear tends to be poor tends to be low tends to be concentrated on outer edge tends to be low

cf. usewear tends to be well tends to be moderate to well tends to be distributed along microtopography tends to be high

present present

present present

frequent, except when retouch absent, except when retouch

present present present

present present present

present, except when retouch present present, except when retouch

frequent

present minor tendency to frequent welldefined scars

rare, except when retouch minor tendency to frequent welldefined scars

not significant

Figure 6.47. Distinctive traits for binding material identifications

6.3

INFLUENCE OF HAFTING ARRANGEMENT ON THE FORMATION PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES

6.3.1

6.3.1.2 Microscopic analysis Both the trace attributes and their distribution over the hafted tool part need to be examined as the contact between stone tool and haft can vary. While only one face of the stone tool is in contact with the haft in juxtaposed arrangements (ventral for this toolset), both faces are in contact with the haft in male split and male arrangements. In a male split arrangement, the edges have less chance of showing traces resulting from haft contact, but this depends on other variables as well (e.g., tool protrusion from haft).

6.3.1.1 Macroscopic analysis The scarring evidence proves to be significantly greater and more intense on male hafted tools (Fig. 6.49), in spite of considerable retouch (e.g., tangs). Gloss is significantly more intense on male split hafted tools, in particular the one fabricated out of wood (Table 4.2). The gloss is located in zones which are in direct contact with the haft.

Polish Polish is most extensive on juxtaposed and male hafted tools (Fig. 6.50), and least extensive on wrapped tools. Most polish on tools hafted in a juxtaposed arrangement results from contact with leather bindings. This contrasts with male split hafted tools, in which the binding contact with the tool’s edges did not result in extensive polish formation (sometimes even in no polish formation), given that it depends on the amount of tool protrusion from the haft. In addition, part of the pressure is absorbed by the haft, unlike in juxtaposed arrangements. The male hafted tools generally show the best-developed and most extensive polish, including distinct edge polish from contact with the haft. Most wrapped tools lack surface polish. Pehension polish is often located in the most proximal zone where the bindings terminate (i.e., the butt area is generally not covered, except in exp. 25/2), which allows contact with the hand. The leather bindings and the male split antler haft result in a distinctively lower average of polished tool parts per tool, while averages per tool are comparable to those for the other haft types (Fig. 6.51). On juxtaposed hafted tools, almost half of the tool parts exhibit

This part of the research relies mainly on tools included in experiment 22, which was a repetitive experiment done with several perfectly comparable tools. Detailed attribute characteristics are focussed upon. Exploration and identification of hafting arrangement impact Since the material being worked is known to influence the intensity of hafting traces only, different materials worked with varying penetrability are combined. Given that use motion influences the hafting trace distribution, only grooving is opted for. Different hafting arrangements are compared: a male direct hafting, a male split hafting (with leather bindings), a juxtaposed hafting with leather bindings, and a leather wrapping. Since the impact of the haft material proved to be limited, different haft materials are combined. The binding material however remains the same (i.e., leather). Thirty-two pieces are included: 8 male hafted tools, 12 with a juxtaposed hafting, 8 mounted in a male split haft and 4 tools with leather bindings only (Fig. 6.48).

140

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

ID Exp. 19/1A Exp. 19/5A Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39 Exp. 16/4 Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/41 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 26/6 Exp. 26/7 Exp. 26/1 Exp. 26/2 Exp. 26/3 Exp. 26/4 Exp. 26/5 Exp. 19/5B Exp. 22/54 Exp. 22/57 Exp. 25/2

HT HM

TP

TD

AP

J J J J J J J J J J J J MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS M M M M M M M M M M M M

T T LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

A A Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Pe Pe Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pe Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pa Pa Pe

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

H:min: Material Haft Haft Activity Bindings sec worked contact material wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 fresh bone wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry antler wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood wood leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler leather ventral grooving 0:55:00 dry wood antler leather ventral grooving 0:29:00 dry wood antler leather ventral grooving 1:00:00 dry wood wood leather both grooving 0:55:00 antler wood leather both grooving 1:00:00 dry wood wood leather both grooving 0:00:10 dry wood wood leather both grooving 0:58:00 dry wood wood leather both grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler leather both grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler leather both grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler leather both grooving 1:00:00 dry wood antler 0 both grooving 0:25:00 soaked antler bone 0 both grooving 0:45:00 antler antler 0 both grooving 1:00:00 bone bone 0 both grooving 0:05:00 fresh wood bone 0 both grooving 2:10:00 fresh wood bone 0 both grooving 0:30:00 wood antler 0 both grooving 1:10:00 wood bone 0 both grooving 0:05:00 wood leather leather both grooving 1:05:00 dry antler leather leather both grooving 0:45:00 wood leather leather both grooving 1:00:00 wood leather leather both grooving 0:23:00 fresh bone

Tooltype burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin burin burin burin burin

Grain size fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine

Figure 6.48. Experimental details

haft polish (46% for wood, 40% for antler); these tool parts are consistently located on the dorsal face, including the butt. The other half show binding polish. On male split hafted tools, most tool parts show haft polish (80% for wood, 93% for antler) and only little binding polish was formed. The haft polish is concentrated on surfaces, ridges and the butt, while the binding polish is concentrated on the edges. Male hafted tools and wrapped tools (i.e., leather bindings alone) show only haft and binding polish respectively. For an investigation of polish concentrations, all tool parts (also the subdivisions) are included. On juxtaposed hafts, the best-developed haft polishes are located on the ventral medial surface, the ventral proximal edges and the bulb and/or ventral butt, while for bindings they are located on the dorsal ridges. For male hafted tools, the best-developed polishes are located on both the dorsal and ventral faces: the dorsal ridges, the dorsal medial edges

and the ventral butt. Male split hafted tools exhibit polish concentrations on the dorsal medial ridge and the ventral proximal bulb. The bulb is the most prominent point of the hafted part of a stone tool, and both bulb and medial ridge generally have the most complete contact with a male split haft. The longitudinal curvature of a stone tool in combination with the bulb size determines the tool’s position in the split haft and the size of the contact area. A prominent bulb reduces the ventral contact area and may restrict it to two distinct contact zones: the bulb and an area at the haft limit. Depending on tool morphology, medial contact may even be limited to the dorsal face only when the longitudinal curvature is minimal. By contrast, when this curvature is considerable, contact at the haft limit may be ventral only. The polish distribution on male split hafted tools is thus very particular. In juxtaposed arrangements, only the morphology of one tool face determines the contact area with the haft. A ventral haft contact generally results in a

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Exp. 19/1A Exp. 19/5A Exp. 22/30 Juxtaposed - wood Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Juxtaposed - antler Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 26/1 Exp. 26/2 Male - hard animal Exp. 26/3 matter Exp. 26/4 Exp. 26/5 Exp. 26/6 Exp. 26/7 Exp. 16/4 Exp. 22/40 Male split - wood Exp. 22/41 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/48 Male split - antler Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50 Exp. 19/5B Exp. 22/54 Leather bindings Exp. 22/57 Exp. 25/2

DPedge

Exp. ID

DPridge

Haft type

141

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

clear limit

211 202 203 212 201 232 203 202 202 232 203 203 201 202 321 401 401 0 201 201 203 203 202 203 202 201 202 0 203 202 202 201

0 0 213 0 0 201 0 401 214 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 401 0 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 401 402 402 401 1 1 401 401 401 401 401 402 0 0 401 402 401 0 401 1 401 401 1 211 1 1 0 222 0 401 0

0 0 214 0 0 0 224 0 212 0 341 0 0 0 0 341 401 0 0 401 0 0 341 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 401 401 402 401 401 1 401 401 402 0 402 403 0 0 341 401 342 0 401 402 1 342 401 1 1 0 0 0 0 402 0

0 0 0 0 401 231 0 0 0 231 0 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 401

0 0 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401 0 0 401 402 402 0 401 1 212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 402 0

0 0 401 402 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 401 402 304 403 402 401 404 401 0 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401

8 0 0 8 0 233 0 0 0 233 0 204 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 212 0 0 201 0

0 both dorsal both 0 dorsal 0 0 0 0 both dorsal both 0 ventral 0 dorsal both both 0 dorsal dorsal both 0 dorsal 0 0 0 0 0 0 ventral

Figure 6.49. Macroscopic scarring per relevant tool part

haft polish concentration on the bulb and ventral medial surface, and a binding polish concentration on the dorsal ridges. The pattern on male hafts is similar to that on male split hafts, aside from the considerable pressure exerted upon insertion in the haft and the impact of edge morphology on the tool’s position in the haft, and thus on the contact surface. Consequently, polish is often concentrated on the edges, in particular round the haft limit, next to an important concentration on the dorsal proximal ridge. Wrappings cause little polish formation, but concentrations are generally located on edges and the dorsal proximal ridge, next to potential prehension polish on the proximal extremity. Few other differences occur for polish formation. The distinction between a haft and binding polish is based mainly on morphological grounds (see use-wear traces).

Scarring The general scarring pattern is conclusive: scarring is distinctly more intense on male hafted tools, despite considerable retouch (Fig. 6.52). On the other tools, scarring intensity depends more on other variables, like retouch and the degree of tool protrusion from the haft. For a more detailed study, all non-interpretable scarring is excluded. For scar location, the male hafted tools are the only ones exhibiting at least some scarring in each of the tool parts of the hafted part. However, the presence and coarseness of retouch and the protrusion of the tool from the haft (except in malehafted tools) first need to be dealt with (Table 3.3; 3.4). A first important observation is on the great amount of – predominantly coarse – retouch on male hafted tools (Exp. 26 are tanged tools), but in spite of this retouch intense scarring could still be distinguished. Wrapped tools are hardly retouched, and never in a coarse way.

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Exp. 19/1A Exp. 19/5A Exp. 22/30 Juxtaposed Exp. 22/31 wood Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Juxtaposed Exp. 22/37 antler Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 26/1 Exp. 26/2 Male - hard Exp. 26/3 animal matter Exp. 26/4 Exp. 26/5 Exp. 26/6 Exp. 26/7 Exp. 16/4 Exp. 22/40 Male split Exp. 22/41 wood Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/48 Male split Exp. 22/49 antler Exp. 22/50 Exp. 19/5B Exp. 22/54 Leather bindings Exp. 22/57 Exp. 25/2

DPedge

Exp. ID

DPridge

Haft type

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

142

0 0 401 401 0 0 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 402 401 0 0 401 401 401 0 0 0 401 401 402 201 502 501 401

401 401 401 402 401 403 401 403 402 403 402 402 402 403 403 402 402 401 402 402 401 401 222 401 401 222 402 403 401 401 401 401

401 402 401 401 401 402 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 402 401 401 401 0 401 401 0 0 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 401

401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 402 401 401 402 401 401 0 401 0 401 401 401 0 401 401 402 401 401 0 0 0

401 402 401 402 402 404 402 402 402 403 402 401 402 222 402 402 403 402 402 401 401 401 222 403 402 222 402 402 401 401 0 402

401 402 402 402 402 402 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 402 403 401 0 401 401 0 401 401 402 0 401 401 0 401 401

401 402 401 401 401 402 401 401 0 402 401 402 402 401 0 401 401 402 401 0 401 0 221 0 401 402 401 0 401 0 0 0

401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 0 401 401 402 401 401 402 402 402 402 0 401 401 401 401 401 0 201 0 402 501 501 0 401

8 402 401 8 401 8 0 402 401 8 402 403 401 401 9 8 401 8 401 8 402 402 401 402 403 401 401 8 401 501 0 401

401 401 402 403 402 401 401 402 0 402 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 402 401 401 401

401 401 0 401 401 401 0 401 0 401 401 0 0 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 0 402 401 0 0 0

401 401 402 401 402 401 402 402 0 401 401 0 401 0 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 0 0 401 401 401 401

401 402 0 401 401 401 0 402 0 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 402 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0

0 9 402 8 9 9 202 401 201 401 0 402 401 0 9 200 9 8 9 9 0 401 0 401 0 401 1 402 9 501 201 202

short clear use -10 fracture limit min 0 both both both both dorsal both both dorsal both both both both 0 dorsal both dorsal both both dorsal both both ventral both both dorsal both both dorsal both both both

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6.50. Polish intensity per hafted tool part

Haft type Total number of polished tool parts Number of tools included Average of polished tool parts per tool

Juxtaposed wood 79 7 11

Juxtaposed antler 61 5 12

Male bone / antler 84 8 11

Male split wood 56 5 11

Male split antler 27 3 9

Leather bindings 29 4 7

Figure 6.51. Average of polished tool parts per tool

Only a few tools protruded slightly from their haft: exp. 22/32 and 16/4, for instance, protruded for about one mm only. The moderately coarse retouch on exp. 22/32 most certainly counteracted all impact from such minimal protrusion from the haft. Exp. 22/35, 22/36, 22/39, 22/43 and 22/49 also protruded from their hafts, but most of these were retouched in a more or less coarse way. Since the tools are quite evenly spread over the different haft type

categories, tool protrusion from the haft is not expected to distort the pattern. The most difficult issue is distinguishing between scars caused by the haft itself from those caused by bindings or from a combination of both, in particular since pressure exerted on the opposite face forms scars. However, one can question the relevance of such a distinction as the whole characterises a hafting arrangement. Bindings for instance

Juxtaposed wood

Juxtaposed antler

Male - hard animal matter

Male split wood

Male split antler

Leather bindings

Exp. 19/1A Exp. 19/5A Exp. 22/30 Exp. 22/31 Exp. 22/32 Exp. 22/33 Exp. 22/34 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/37 Exp. 22/38 Exp. 22/39 Exp. 25/5 Exp. 26/1 Exp. 26/2 Exp. 26/3 Exp. 26/4 Exp. 26/5 Exp. 26/6 Exp. 26/7 Exp. 16/4 Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/41 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50 Exp. 19/5B Exp. 22/54 Exp. 22/57 Exp. 25/2

0 402 203 0 202 321 0 202 203 321 203 202 202 203 0 0 402 402 403 402 203 202 203 203 202 203 203 0 201 0 202 202

0 0 202 0 0 223 222 401 223 221 0 0 0 223 402 1 401 0 401 402 0 0 221 0 0 223 0 0 0 0 0 0

401 402 401 403 0 0 223 221 223 401 0 0 403 401 403 402 403 402 403 403 401 402 0 0 0 402 401 0 0 402 401 403

0 0 202 0 401 0 222 0 223 221 0 0 0 223 402 0 401 0 401 402 0 0 221 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 221

401 402 403 402 0 0 223 401 223 401 401 402 403 401 403 402 403 403 402 403 402 403 0 0 0 401 401 0 0 402 401 401

0 201 0 0 201 402 0 0 0 401 402 401 401 201 302 401 402 402 402 0 0 0 201 0 0 0 0 402 201 0 0 401

401 1 401 401 401 401 211 401 212 402 401 0 403 401 402 402 402 403 402 401 402 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 1 402 402 403

401 2 401 403 0 212 211 211 0 401 0 211 402 0 403 402 403 403 402 401 402 402 401 0 0 0 401 401 0 402 401 403

BUTT

VMedge

VPedge

VPbutt

DMedge

DMridge

DPedge

Exp. ID

DPridge

Haft type

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

402 201 0 8 9 9 201 0 201 321 202 202 201 402 402 403 0 8 402 402 201 201 201 201 203 201 202 0 201 201 202 201

143

clear short use fracture limit -10 min 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6.52. Scarring intensity per hafted tool part

are essential for a juxtaposed hafting, and it is the combination of both a haft and binding influence that characterises the scarring pattern on such tools. However, for this investigation an attempt should be made to separate the different causes of scarring in order to allow for their characterisation. The scarring pattern is first examined as a whole and an attempt is made to distinguish it according to the material responsible for its formation. The scar morphology shows the first distinctive features between the hafting arrangements (Fig. 6.53). Scalar scars are dominant, next to trapezoidal scars, but on tools mounted in a male bone/antler haft sliced scars are absent while crushing is abundant. As mentioned (see chapter 3), sliced scars (with particular initiations, etc.) are typical for the use of bindings, and this is confirmed by their absence on tools which are hafted without bindings and their higher

frequency on wrapped tools. Their absence on tools hafted in a male split antler haft is most probably due to the presence of retouch combined with the lack of protrusion from the haft. The only tool that protruded was partially retouched in a moderately coarse way (exp. 22/49). The hafting arrangement thus determines the scar morphology. The morphological details of these scars are also informative (Fig. 6.54): “sliced into scalar scars” follow the same frequency distribution as the sliced scars of fig. 6.53. The former were attributed to the use of bindings (see chapter 3). “Balloon-type scalar scars” are recorded only for juxtaposed wooden and male bone/antler hafts, but given the late addition of this attribute data are lacking for several of the tools included (see chapter 2).

144

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

juxtaposed wood

Scar morphology scalar trapezoidal triangular rectangular irregular sliced nibbling crushing Total number

total nr 22 13 2 0 1 3 1 7 49

% 45 27 4 0 2 6 2 14

juxtaposed antler total nr 10 8 1 0 0 2 0 3 24

% 42 33 4 0 0 8 0 13

male bone / antler total nr 45 17 5 7 18 0 3 37 132

% 34 13 4 5 14 0 2 28

male split wood male split antler leather bindings total nr 17 11 1 1 2 4 0 1 37

% 46 30 3 3 5 11 0 3

total nr 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 16

% 56 31 6 0 0 0 0 6

total nr 13 5 1 0 1 12 0 1 33

% 39 15 3 0 3 36 0 3

Figure 6.53. Number recorded per scar morphology category

Morphological details balloon-type scalar scars oblique scars sliced into scalar scars Total number

juxtaposed wood 2 4 1 7

juxtaposed antler 0 0 1 1

male bone / antler 1 2 0 3

male split wood 0 7 4 11

male split antler 0 4 0 4

leather bindings 0 2 4 6

Figure 6.54. Number recorded per detailed scar morphology category

Scar initiation wide narrow dip straight into curve curve twisted Total number

juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler male bone/antler male split wood nr of tool nr of tool nr of tool nr of tool % % % % parts parts parts parts 17 13 7 15 55 52 47 50 1 5 8 0 3 20 53 0 6 2 0 7 19 8 0 23

male split antler leather bindings nr of tool nr of tool % % parts parts 9 19 75 43 1 3 8 7 0 0 0 0

1

3

1

4

0

0

4

13

0

0

5

11

4 2 31

13 6

2 2 25

8 8

0 0 15

0 0

3 1 30

10 3

2 0 12

17 0

7 10 44

16 23

Figure 6.55. Number recorded per scar initiation category

While the haft material and the scar initiation tended to be related to a certain degree (see supra), the relationship with the haft type – in particular the use of bindings – is much stronger (Fig. 6.55). Narrow initiations again prove to be most often associated with hard haft materials, like antler. Dip initiations appear to be associated most often with wooden hafts. The most distinctive traits are the almost identical frequency distribution of “straight into curve”, “curved”, and “twisted” initiations and the other scar attributes linked with the use of bindings, and the absence of these initiations on male hafted tools (in bone/antler). Only the male split antler haft type largely lacks the above scar attributes, but it exhibits scars with curved initiations. This again indicates that the presence of retouch and the lack of protrusion from the haft counteract the formation of the more “typical” binding scars while a tendency towards them nevertheless remains present (i.e., curved initiations). The location of scars with curved initiations on unretouched edges confirms this (e.g., the dorsal medial right edge of

exp. 22/48, the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 22/49; Table 6.22 & Fig. 6.52). Therefore, the association between the use of bindings and the occurrence of a particular scar morphology (i.e., sliced, sliced into scalar) and initiation (i.e., straight into curved, curved, twisted) proves valid. When examining the internal variability of these “binding scars”, the typical initiations appear to occur on edges only (not on the butt), while the scars themselves appear to have a more usual location depending on the haft type: – juxtaposed antler haft: only on left edge – juxtaposed wooden haft: most usually on left edge – male split antler haft: only right – male split wooden haft: most usually right – leather bindings: most usually left Juxtaposed hafts thus appear to cause a different scar location in comparison to male split hafts, and patterns are most obvious in the case of antler hafts. However, if retouch data are included, the location proves to be highly determined by retouch. On the juxtaposed hafted tools the

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

left edge is the least (coarsely) retouched, while on the male split antler tools the right edge is the least retouched. This implies that the pattern was artificial and that there is no preferential binding scar location caused by the haft type. Nor is there a particular distribution on the dorsal versus the ventral face, or the proximal versus the medial part. Consequently, not the hafting arrangement but retouch, tool protrusion and tool morphology determine the location of binding scars. Whether the binding direction27 influences the location of binding scars is also examined. When a tool is fixed on or in a haft with the aid of bindings, one can assume that the pressure exerted during the fixation of these bindings determines the scar location. This would imply that bindings attached round the tool from the dorsal right edge towards the ventral right edge (Fig. 6.56) exert pressure on the dorsal right edge, resulting in scarring on the ventral right edge. When tested on the basis of the available dataset, this assumption does not prove to be well-founded.

dorsal face

ventral face Figure 6.56. Impact from the binding direction

145

On exp. 16/4, bindings are applied from the ventral right edge towards the dorsal right edge, and one would expect scarring on the dorsal right edge and the ventral left edge. In reality, “typical” binding scars occur on the dorsal and ventral right edge. Retouch is not an issue, since all hafted edges of this tool were unretouched. But perhaps the vulnerability of the edge to scarring depends on the direction of the pressure? Based on the above example, this would imply that the edge is most often damaged when the pressure comes from the ventral side. No relevant data are currently available to test this for tools attached to a handle. There are data for wrapped tools, on which binding scars are frequent and occur on most edges. However, no distinct relationship can be observed. The identified impact of the haft material on scar termination is confirmed (Fig. 6.57): the harder the haft material, the more abrupt the scar termination. The same goes for superposing scars. The importance of abruptly terminating scars on male split antler hafted tools cannot be confirmed, but superposing scars are frequent. Vertical scars prove to be associated with the use of bindings only, as a result of their close correlation with sliced scars (see chapter 3). The haft type does not prove to influence scar size (Fig. 6.58): small and medium-sized scars are predominant for all haft types. One haft type distinguishes itself as far as scar depth is concerned: deep scars predominate only for a direct male hafting in bone/antler (Fig. 6.59). The other haft types mainly cause superficial or moderately deep scars. With regard to scar depth, the potential influence of the binding thickness was observed during the microscopic analysis: narrow bindings appeared to result more frequently

juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler male bone/antler male split wood Scar termination total nr total nr total nr total nr % % % % snap 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 feather 20 8 27 10 43 33 24 36 hinge 0 4 8 4 0 17 7 14 step 17 9 49 13 37 38 43 46 vertical 3 2 0 1 7 8 0 4 superposition 4 1 29 0 9 4 26 0 Total number 46 24 113 28

male split antler leather bindings total nr total nr % % 0 3 0 9 8 13 44 37 0 0 0 0 6 8 33 23 1 11 6 31 3 0 17 0 18 35

Figure 6.57. Number recorded per scar termination category

juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler male bone/antler male split wood total nr total nr total nr total nr % % % % small 23 9 41 13 58 45 42 52 medium 10 9 41 9 25 45 42 36 large 5 1 16 2 13 5 16 8 very large 2 1 0 1 5 5 0 4 Total number 40 20 98 25 Scar size

Figure 6.58. Number recorded per scar size category 27

The direction in which bindings are attached round the tool (i.e., from the dorsal right edge to the ventral right edge or the inverse) was recorded in a later stage of the investigation only and data are thus limited.

male split antler leather bindings total nr total nr % % 7 15 50 43 5 16 36 46 1 4 7 11 1 0 7 0 14 35

146

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler male bone/antler male split wood male split antler leather bindings total nr total nr total nr total nr total nr total nr % % % % % % superficial 14 10 14 12 5 7 58 50 26 48 50 29 moderate 9 9 19 9 5 17 38 45 36 36 50 71 deep 1 1 20 4 0 0 4 5 38 16 0 0 Total number 24 20 53 25 10 24 Scar depth

Figure 6.59. Number recorded per scar depth category

juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler male bone/antler male split wood Scar intrusiveness total nr total nr total nr total nr % % % % intrusive 5 8 0 3 22 36 0 12 moderate 14 10 7 14 61 45 70 56 abrupt 4 4 3 8 17 18 30 32 Total number 23 22 10 25

male split antler leather bindings total nr 0 7 3 10

% 0 70 30

total nr 1 14 13 28

% 4 50 46

Figure 6.60. Number recorded per scar intrusiveness category

Scar distribution even & run-together even & wide uneven & run-together uneven & wide alternating bifacial continuous distinct patches Total number

juxtaposed wood total nr % 2 7 0 0 17 57 8 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 30

juxtaposed antler total nr % 1 9 0 0 9 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 11

male bone/ antler total nr % 5 5 2 2 35 38 12 13 1 1 5 5 9 10 24 26 93

male split wood total nr % 0 0 0 0 14 74 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21 19

male split antler total nr % 0 0 0 0 7 78 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

leather bindings total nr % 0 0 0 0 14 64 4 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 18 22

Figure 6.61. Number recorded per scar distribution category

in deeper binding scars than broad bindings. This pattern indeed proves to be present on, for instance, exp. 10/5 (broad leather bindings) with regard to exp. 10/7 (narrow vegetal bindings): the binding scars on exp. 10/5 are superficial, while the ones on exp. 10/7 are deep. The explanation no doubt lies in the size of the area on which pressure is exerted, but the recurrence of this pattern needs to be tested on a larger dataset. Scar definition does not differ significantly between hafting arrangements: moderately defined scars tend to predominate for all haft types, but the highest percentage of well-defined scars occurs on male (bone/antler) and juxtaposed hafting arrangements. Scar intrusiveness proves to be correlated with the occurrence of binding scars (Fig. 6.60, cf. Fig. 6.53). In general, sliced into scalar scars tend to be more intrusive than others and intrusive scars are indeed absent on tools without binding scars (see supra). Sliced into scalar scars (instead of sliced scars) are more likely to form when bindings are used in combination with a handle. Sliced scars are very abrupt and abrupt scars are indeed most frequent on wrapped tools. When sliced into scalar scars occur in the case of a wrapping, they tend to be more abrupt. The scar distribution within one tool part is predomi-

nantly uneven and run-together, often in distinct patches along the edge (Fig. 6.61). It does not permit a distinction to be made between hafting arrangements. The scar distribution on tools which were hafted directly in a male bone or antler haft appears to be more distinctive. Different distributions28 occur which were not recorded for any of the other haft types under consideration: even and wide scars, alternating scars, bifacial scars and continuously distributed scars. The occurrence of bifacial and continuously distributed scars on tools used in a male (bone/antler) arrangement is a result of direct contact with a hard material. Consequently, only the scar distribution on male hafted tools proves to be indicative of the haft type. For a few tool parts, more detail was recorded on the exact scar pattern29 within one tool part (Fig. 6.62). Data are too limited for far-reaching conclusions, but the relatively high number of scars with smaller scars or crushing at their initiation on direct male hafted tools (bone/antler) confirms the considerable impact of this haft type on the 28

29

More than one kind of distribution can be recorded per damaged tool part (see chapter 2). This attribute was added at a later stage of the investigation and is thus missing for a number of tools.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

juxtaposed wood

Pattern details termination at more or less same line large scars with smaller ones at their initiation large scars with crushing at initiation inverse skewed saw pattern scars form clear intrusion / notch largest scars in centre of patch largest scars at extremities of patch

juxtaposed antler 1

2 2 1 1 1

male bone/ antler

male split wood

6 5

3

1

147

leather bindings

1 1 1

1

Figure 6.62. Number recorded per scar pattern category

juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler male bone/antler male split wood male split antler leather bindings Scar interpretability total nr total nr total nr total nr total nr total nr % % % % % % low certainty

2

8

0

0

2

3

0

0

2

22

0

0

moderate certainty

3

12

3

19

18

24

2

13

1

11

7

33

high certainty

13

50

9

56

10

13

6

38

5

56

1

5

certain

8

31

4

25

45

60

8

50

1

11

13

62

Total number

26

16

75

16

9

21

Figure 6.63. Number of tool parts per interpretability level

edge and the importance of superposing scars. Other scar patterns occur only on tools for which bindings were used, and the relevance of this association needs to be tested (see infra). A male haft type, including wrappings, permits the largest number of certain interpretations as a result of the distinct scarring formed: either very abundant for male antler and bone hafts, or limited but with a diagnostic morphology and initiation for wrapped tools (Fig. 6.63). On other tools, scars can predominantly be interpreted with a high degree of certainty. To conclude, the haft type appears to have a diagnostic impact on the scarring pattern and, on the basis of malehafted tools, a number of distinct criteria can be proposed for scars caused by haft or binding contact (Fig. 6.64). When male-hafted tools are omitted, the scarring cause on the basis of the above distinctive traits (“derived cause”) proves to correspond nicely with the material responsible inventoried during the analysis (“interpreted responsible material”) (Fig. 6.65). The few differences concern juxtaposed hafted tools for which a combined impact was often proposed, while a re-evaluation of the evidence points to a specific hafting material. Only in one case (dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 22/40 – male split wooden haft) was a totally different hafting material proposed: haft impact instead of binding impact. Since this concerns a male split haft and the proximal edge of a non-protruding tool, the derived cause seems more correct. Interpretability does not prove to be linked with the exact location of scarring, Bright spots For bright spots, a distinction between haft and binding impact can be based on their location. There are not many

differences on a general level (Table 5.1). Bright spots are most numerous on tools hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft, most commonly on the face in contact with the haft (i.e, ventral), or in a male bone/antler haft. For male split arrangements, bright spots are restricted to the ventral face, possibly because this face has a closer contact with the haft. Their location on the bulb and the adjacent proximal surface supports this: these are the most protruding parts of the ventral face. Bright spots are most abundant and largest on tools hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft, but the best-developed bright spots can be observed on tools hafted in a male bone or antler haft. Bright spots also tend to be better developed on the other antler-hafted tools in comparison with woodhafted tools. In all cases, bright spots are most frequent on surfaces: when they are inventoried on edges they are actually often located just next to the outer edge. Most often, the bright spots are caused by flint friction. Only on the male bone hafted tools do bone particles appear to have played a role in their formation. Striations Hafting striations are rare on all tools, but most occur on tools hafted in a male bone/antler haft, next to the ventral face of tools hafted against a juxtaposed antler haft, i.e. on the face in contact with the haft (Table 5.1). There are not many differences in striation attributes between the hafting arrangements, but long striations were observed only on male bone/antler hafted tools. Striations with perpendicular orientations predominate on all tools, but this is a result of the use motion (see chapter 5). Rounding/smoothing Rounding is rare. It is predominantly present on the dorsal ridges of tools hafted on a juxtaposed wooden haft. Contact

148

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Scar attribute morphology morphological detail

initiation

termination

size depth intrusiveness definition

distribution

pattern

interpretation

Scar characteristic sliced crushing balloon-type scars sliced into scalar scars wide narrow straight into curved curved twisted snap feather hinge step vertical superposition deep well-defined even & run-together even & wide uneven & run-together uneven & wide alternating bifacial continuous distinct patches large scars with smaller at initiation large scars with crushing at initiation inverse skewed saw largest scars in centre of patch -

HAFT absent present present absent present present absent absent absent absent moderate present frequent absent present not distinctive present not distinctive frequent present present present present present present present present present present absent absent not distinctive

BINDINGS present absent absent present present present present present present present frequent absent moderate present absent not distinctive absent not distinctive moderate absent absent present present absent absent absent present absent absent present present not distinctive

Figure 6.64. Distinctive scar traits based on male-hafted tools

Derived cause bindings both

haft

not significant

Interpreted responsible material bindings combined bindings combined haft bindings combined haft bindings combined

juxtaposed wood

juxtaposed antler

male split wood

male split antler

2 1 1

4

2

4

7

1

3 2 5 5

4 2 2 3

2 4 1 2 5 2

3

Figure 6.65. Number of tool parts per derived cause and interpreted responsible material

with leather bindings is thus more apt to lead to the formation of a rounding than contact with a haft. The only haftinduced rounding is observed on exp. 26/7.

6.3.1.3 Conclusion The impact of the hafting arrangement mainly concerns the formation of polish and scarring. It influences the exact polish distribution over the hafted part (e.g., dorsal versus

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

ventral) next to obvious morphological differences. For scarring, a large number of characteristic attributes could be identified: intensity, morphology, initiation, termination, depth, and distribution within one tool part. Differences between juxtaposed and male split arrangements on the one hand and male arrangements on the other hand are marked. In addition, the overall scar distribution over the hafted part differs between juxtaposed and male split arrangements. This implies that an investigation of polish and scarring allows the identification of the haft type used. 6.3.2

Systematic verification of hafting arrangement impact : use motion The verification of the impact of the hafting arrangement needs to be minimal only, as the exact impact of the material being worked on the formation of hafting traces is known (see chapter 5). Adzing, chiselling, scraping, perforating and drilling activities are included, next to different haft materials: bone, antler and wood, in identical arrangements, as previously examined. Forty-seven tools are examined, all fabricated out of fine-grained flint (Fig. 6.66). 6.3.2.1 Macroscopic analysis Differences between the hafting arrangements are again visible on a macroscopic level and the identified impact of the haft type can be confirmed: scarring is most intense on male antler hafted tools, even on intensely retouched ones (Fig. 6.67; Table 3.3). Male wooden hafts were not included earlier and scarring appears to be more reduced than on antler-hafted ones. The haft material is however not responsible (see supra), but the presence of moderate to very coarse retouch (Table 3.3) may have had an impact even though the tools of exp. 26 experienced coarse retouch as well. Tools hafted in another arrangement show far less macroscopic hafting scarring. Gloss is most frequent on the male split wooden and juxtaposed hafted tools (Table 4.2). As expected, the face in contact with the haft shows most gloss (i.e., ventral for juxtaposed hafting). A few male antler hafted tools show more frequent gloss formation, but overall gloss is limited. As with the initial toolset, wrapped tools do not show gloss formation. 6.3.2.2 Microscopic analysis Polish The general polish pattern confirms expected trends (Fig. 6.68). On the juxtaposed hafted tools, the most extensive polish is located on the dorsal face (binding contact), on the ridges in particular, while it is limited on the ventral face (haft contact) where it is concentrated on the bulb and medial surface. The male hafted tools show a comparable polish development and extent between the two tool faces, with concentrations on the ridges and the medial edges. The expected concentration on the ventral bulb is invisible, given the absence of a bulb on several tools. On male split hafted tools, polish is again more limited, except on prominent points like the bulb. There is no polish concentration

149

on the edges and the polish that occurs differs completely in morphology (leather bindings). Wrapped tools show a polish distribution over the whole hafted part instead of true concentrations. The average of polished tool parts per tool is comparable between this and the initial toolset (Fig. 6.69). Wrapped tools again show the smallest number of polished tool parts per tool (9 zones per tool). To demonstrate the differences in polish pattern between the haft types, the number of tool parts showing a haft polish is compared with those showing binding polish (Fig. 6.70). While the figures are comparable for juxtaposed hafted tools, due to only one face being in contact with a particular hafting material, the male split hafted tools show clear differences. Only the edges made contact with the binding material, significantly reducing the number of tool parts involved. Male hafted tools show only one kind of polish. The most distinctive criterion for polish remains the morphological one and, combined with polish location, the haft type can be inferred. The combination of two kinds of polishes points to a juxtaposed (opposition between dorsal and ventral face) or a male split hafting (opposition between interior tool part and edges), one kind of polish only points to a male hafting. Male split and male hafted tools differ in the impact on the edges, with more limited polish formation on male split hafted tools. Scarring Scarring is again most intense on male hafted tools, as attested macroscopically. For scar morphology (Fig. 6.71), an absence of sliced scars and a considerable amount of crushing are expected on male hafted tools. This proves to be only partly true. One perforating tool, exp. 22/19, shows sliced scars, while the hafting arrangement is male. Tools used in rotating motions (perforating, drilling) indeed form the one exception to a very consistent association between bindings and sliced scars (see chapter 3). It is caused by very similar pressure exerted by the haft on the edge during use: oblique, nearly perpendicular pressure on the edge from the inner surface onwards (Fig. 6.72). More traditional scalar scars are formed by pressure which is also oblique on the edge, but from the outside. The absence of retouch on the hafted part of exp. 22/19 contributed to the formation of sliced scars. Other frequency distributions are as expected, including on male wooden hafted tools. Consequently, use motions other than rotating ones do not influence the identified impact on scar morphology. “Sliced into scalar scars” are not expected on male hafted tools, but the few examples (e.g., exp. 22/19) are a result of rotating motion (Fig. 6.73). Some of the sliced scars recorded in fig. 6.71 proceed into a scalar one and are thus recorded in fig. 6.73 as well. The balloon-type scalar scars prove not to be consistently linked with the presence of a haft, given their occurrence on wrapped tools. “Narrow into wide scars” were recorded only for tools hafted in a male antler haft; a consistent correlation between the two is likely, given the considerable pressure which is exerted on the edges in a male arrangement, but it requires further

150

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

ID

HT HM TP TD AP

Haft Binding Haft Bindings Fixation material direction contact

Activity

H:min: sec

Material Worked

Tooltype scraper

Exp. 1/9

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

adzing

0:03:00

acacia

Exp. 1/10

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

adzing

0:25:00

acacia

scraper

Exp. 4/2

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

adzing

0:30:00

earth

tranchet

Exp. 4/3

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

adzing

0:30:00

earth

tranchet

Exp. 4/5

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

adzing

1:00:00

earth & grass

tranchet

1:00:00

earth, stone, etc.

scraper

Exp. 9/2

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

1

0

ventral

adzing

Exp. 10/2

J

D

T

Exp. 10/25

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

(2)

0

ventral

chiselling

0:30:00

oak

scraper

A

Pe

wood

leather

1

0

ventral

scraping

0:20:05

oak

scraper

Exp. 10/29

J

D

T

Exp. 10/38

J

D

A

Pe

wood

leather

(2)

0

ventral

scraping

0:30:00

oak

scraper

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

2

0

ventral

scraping

0:30:12

oak

Exp. 13/11

J

D

T

scraper

A

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

scraping

0:20:00

schist

Exp. 16/6

J

D

T

scraper

A

Pe

wood

leather

2

0

ventral

scraping

0:35:00 wet snake hide

scraper

Exp. 16/17

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

2

0

ventral

scraping

1:30:00

fresh sheep hide

retouched blade

Exp. 14/10

J

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

2

0

ventral

drilling

0:13:20

schist

Exp. 14/12

J

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

0

0

ventral

drilling

0:20:00

bone

borer borer

Exp. 9/3

J

D

LD Tr

Pe

antler

leather

1

0

ventral

adzing

1:00:00

earth, plants

blade

Exp. 10/3

J

D

T

A

Pe

antler

leather

2

0

ventral

chiselling

0:25:00

oak

scraper

Exp. 13/8

J

D

T

A

Pe

antler

leather

0

0

ventral

scraping

0:30:00

schist

scraper

Exp. 16/14

J

D

T

A

Pa

bone

leather

1

0

ventral

cutting

2:30:00

vegetables, meat

blade

Exp. 20/2

M

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

1

0

both

scraping

0:53:18

dry deer hide+ochre

tanged scraper

Exp. 16/20

M

D

T

A

Pa

wood

0

0

0

both

drilling

0:40:00

fluorite with water

drillbit

Exp. 16/15

M

D

T

A

Pa

antler

0

0

0

both

striking

2:30:00

markasite

retouched blade

Exp. 16/7

M

D

T

A

Pe

antler

0

0

wooden sticks

both

scraping

1:30:00

cow bone

scraper

Exp. 13/6

M

D

T

A

Pe

antler

0

0

0

both

sawing

0:15:00

schist

blade

Exp. 22/19

M

D

T

A

Pa

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

0:40:00

fresh bone

perforator

Exp. 22/20

M

D

T

A

Pa

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

0:45:00

fresh bone

perforator

Exp. 22/21

M

D

T

A

Pa

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

0:40:00

fresh bone

perforator tanged burin

Exp. 26/10

M

D

T

A

Pe

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

1:00:00

dry antler: spongiosa

Exp. 26/11

M

D

T

A

Pe

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

1:00:00

dry antler: spongiosa

tanged burin

Exp. 26/12

M

D

T

A

Pe

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

1:00:00

dry antler

tanged burin

Exp. 26/13

M

D

T

A

Pe

antler

0

0

0

both

perforating

0:50:00

dry antler

tanged burin

both

chiselling

0:30:38

ash

scraper scraper

Exp. 10/30 MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

2

wooden sticks

Exp. 16/10 MS

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

(1)

0

both

scraping

1:00:00

dry pig hide

Exp. 16/11 MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

1

0

both

scraping

1:00:00

bone + meat

scraper

Exp. 16/12 MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

1

0

both

scraping

1:00:00

dry antler

scraper

Exp. 16/22 MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

(2)

0

both

scraping

0:43:00

bone

scraper

Exp. 20/1

MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

1

0

both

scraping

0:36:47 fresh deer hide

scraper

Exp. 20/6

MS

D

T

A

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

both

scraping

0:14:00 fresh deer hide

scraper

Exp. 14/3

MS

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

0

0

both

perforating

0:19:00

schist

Exp. 14/5

MS

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

0

0

both

perforating

0:36:00

schist

borer

Exp. 22/13 MS

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

0

0

both

perforating

1:00:00

fresh bone

perforator

Exp. 14/2

MS

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

0

0

both

drilling

0:39:00

schist

borer

Exp. 14/7

MS

D

T

A

Pa

wood

leather

0

0

both

drilling

0:18:00

antler

borer

Exp. 4/6

MS

D

LD Tr

Pe

wood

leather

0

0

both

adzing

1:15:00

very wet earth

tranchet

Exp. 14/4

M

D

T

A

Pa

leather

leather

0

0

both

perforating

0:30:00

schist

borer

Exp. 14/6

M

D

T

A

Pa

leather

leather

0

0

both

perforating

0:30:00

schist

borer

Exp. 16/23

M

D

T

A

Pe

leather

leather

0

0

both

perforating

1:00:00

antler & schist

perforator

Figure 6.66. Experimental details

borer

DMridge

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2 Exp. 10/2 Juxtaposed - wood Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 14/10 Exp. 14/12 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 10/3 Juxtaposed - antler Exp. 13/8 Exp. 16/14 Exp. 20/2 Male - wood Exp. 16/20 Exp. 16/15 Exp. 16/7 Exp. 13/6 Exp. 22/19 Exp. 22/20 Male - antler Exp. 22/21 Exp. 26/10 Exp. 26/11 Exp. 26/12 Exp. 26/13 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 16/11 Exp. 16/12 Exp. 16/22 Exp. 20/1 Male split - wood Exp. 20/6 Exp. 14/3 Exp. 14/5 Exp. 22/13 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 14/4 Leather bindings Exp. 14/6 Exp. 16/23

DPedge

Exp. ID

DPridge

Haft type

151

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

clear limit

401 0 0 202 0 212 402 203 202 204 201 321 201 322 201 0 402 203 203 211 322 201 202 202 2 202 321 0 212 403 212 202 202 202 202 201 201 201 202 201 323 0 202 1 202 201 203

0 0 202 0 0 0 202 0 0 202 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202 0 0 0 402 0 0 401 401 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 402 0 211 402 402 401 402 401 0 401 402 0 401 402 1 401 402 401 401 0 401 0 401 401 401 1 402 401 401 401 401 201 402 402 0 0 401 401 401 402 0 202 402 401 401 401

0 0 0 0 0 0 202 0 0 204 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

342 402 0 1 401 402 402 402 401 0 401 401 402 401 0 401 401 401 0 401 401 402 0 402 402 402 1 401 0 0 402 401 0 401 401 401 401 0 0 401 402 0 202 402 0 401 0

0 0 212 2 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 321 0 323 401 0 402 0 0 0 321 0 212 0 0 0 321 0 0 403 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 321 401 0 2 0 0 0

401 401 0 402 401 0 401 401 402 0 0 401 0 401 0 1 401 401 401 401 0 0 0 0 401 401 403 401 401 402 401 401 0 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

342 401 0 401 401 0 402 401 404 401 401 0 0 401 0 0 401 403 0 0 401 402 401 401 403 0 401 401 401 401 401 402 402 401 401 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

402 0 8 0 401 1 401 0 0 201 0 323 0 8 0 202 1 0 0 8 8 0 8 203 201 201 321 211 0 403 0 402 201 2 401 0 212 202 0 0 323 321 0 8 0 0 202

both 0 0 0 both dorsal both 0 both 0 both 0 0 0 0 0 0 ventral 0 both 0 ventral 0 0 both 0 0 ventral ventral 0 ventral 0 ventral 0 both dorsal 0 0 0 dorsal dorsal 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6.67. Macroscopic scarring intensity per relevant tool part

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

Leather bindings

DMsurf

Male split wood

DMedge

Male - antler

DMridge

Male - wood

DPsurf

Juxtaposed antler

DPedge

Juxtaposed wood

Exp. ID

DPridge

Haft type

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

152

Exp. 1/9 Exp. 1/10 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/5 Exp. 9/2 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 14/10 Exp. 14/12 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 13/8 Exp. 16/14 Exp. 20/2 Exp. 16/20 Exp. 16/15 Exp. 16/7 Exp. 13/6 Exp. 22/19 Exp. 22/20 Exp. 22/21 Exp. 26/10 Exp. 26/11 Exp. 26/12 Exp. 26/13 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 16/11 Exp. 16/12 Exp. 16/22 Exp. 20/1 Exp. 20/6 Exp. 14/3 Exp. 14/5 Exp. 22/13 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 4/6 Exp. 14/4 Exp. 14/6 Exp. 16/23

401 401 401 402 0 0 402 402 0 402 0 403 0 401 0 0 402 401 0 9 401 0 402 401 401 401 0 0 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 0 0 0 0 401 401 401 0 0 401

401 403 401 403 403 401 401 403 401 402 401 401 401 402 401 403 401 402 401 402 402 402 401 402 402 401 0 222 402 401 403 401 402 401 401 402 401 401 402 401 402 401 401 403 401 401 401

401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 402 403 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401

0 402 401 402 402 402 401 401 401 401 0 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 403 401 0 0 0 221 0 401 401 403 401 401 0 0 401 0 401 0 401 401 402 0 0 401 401

401 403 401 403 403 403 202 403 401 402 401 401 401 401 0 403 402 401 401 402 402 403 401 402 401 401 0 222 402 401 402 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 403 401 401 401

401 402 401 401 402 402 401 401 401 401 0 402 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 402 403 402 402 402 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 402 0 401 401 402 0 401 401 401 401 401

401 402 401 402 402 402 201 401 401 401 0 0 402 401 401 402 401 0 0 0 402 0 402 401 401 401 0 221 0 401 0 403 401 401 0 0 401 0 0 0 401 401 0 401 0 401 0

0 402 401 401 403 401 401 0 0 0 0 402 0 401 401 403 401 0 0 402 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 0 401 401 403 402 403 0 0 201 401 201 0 0 401 401 0 402 0 0 501

402 402 8 8 8 8 403 403 402 402 402 402 401 8 402 401 403 402 402 8 8 401 8 0 401 402 8 8 402 8 8 403 403 403 401 403 8 401 401 401 8 8 401 8 401 0 402

401 401 401 401 401 401 402 402 401 402 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 402 401 403 403 402 401 402 401 401 401 402 401 0 401 401 401 0 0 0 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401

0 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 0 402 401 401 402 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 0 0 401 0 401 0 402 0 402 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 401 0 401 401

401 402 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 402 401 402 401 402 401 401 401 401 402 401 402 402 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 403 401 401 401

0 404 402 401 403 402 401 0 401 402 403 401 401 402 403 402 401 401 402 402 401 401 401 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 403 401 0 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 403 0 0 0

402 0 404 both 8 dorsal 9 both 401 both 9 both 0 both 402 both 0 both 403 both 0 both 402 both 402 0 401 ventral 401 ventral 9 both 404 both 0 both 8 both 8 both 0 both 201 both 8 both 9 both 401 both 401 both 0 both 8 0 401 both 9 both 8 both 401 both 9 both 403 both 403 both 401 both 9 both 9 0 401 0 201 both 0 both 401 both 401 0 8 both 202 both 0 both 503 both

Figure 6.68. Polish intensity per relevant tool part

clear limit

short use -10 fracture min 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Total number of polished tool parts Number of tools included Average number of polished tool parts per tool

Juxtaposed wood 172 15

Juxtaposed bone/antler 45 4

11

11

153

99 10

Male split wood 122 13

Leather bindings 26 3

10

9

9

Male wood

Male antler

21 2 11

Figure 6.69. Number of polished tool parts per hafting arrangement

Number of polished tool parts

Juxtaposed wood

Juxtaposed bone/antler

male wood

male antler

male split wood

leather bindings

haft

83

21

24

111

94

0

bindings

91

29

0

0

33

26

flint

1

1

0

0

0

0

combination

14

0

0

1

4

2

Figure 6.70. Number of polished tool parts per cause

juxtaposed wood Scar morphology total nr % scalar 81 49 trapezoidal 30 18 triangular 6 4 rectangular 2 1 irregular 7 4 sliced 10 6 nibbling 3 2 crushing 25 15 Total number 164

juxtaposed antler/bone total nr % 22 38 11 19 0 0 1 2 3 5 6 10 4 7 11 19 58

male antler

male wood

total nr 53 29 2 1 17 4 0 28 134

total nr 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 16

% 40 22 1 1 13 3 0 21

male split wood % 69 0 25 0 0 0 0 6

total nr 59 19 0 1 3 13 0 10 105

% 56 18 0 1 3 12 0 10

leather bindings total nr 13 3 1 1 0 3 2 0 23

% 57 13 4 4 0 13 9 0

Figure 6.71. Number of tool parts per scar morphology category dorsal face sliced scar

ventral face dorsal face scalar scar

ventral face

Figure 6.72. Relationship between the direction of the pressure exerted on the edge and the resulting scar morphology

confirmation. Abraded crushing is predominantly present on tools hafted in a male antler haft, given the considerable pressure on the edges. It is particularly important in rotating motions. Use motion, apart from rotating motions, does not seem to influence the impact of the hafting arrangement on the scar initiation (Fig. 6.74). Sliced scars on tools hafted in a male antler haft are associated with a straight into curve or curved initiation. In addition, a few of the scalar scars also showed a curved initiation (rotating motions only). The same principle goes for tools hafted in a male wooden haft and used in rotating motions (exp. 16/20). The pattern is thus consistent and only on perforating or drilling tools

Morphological details juxtaposed wood juxtaposed antler/bone balloon-type scalar scars 0 0 elongated scars 0 0 oblique scars 3 0 sliced into scalar scars 4 4 narrow into wide scars 0 0 abraded crushing 0 2 Figure 6.73. Number of tool parts per detailed scar morphology category

male antler 2 4 5 2 2 9

male split wood 2 3 6 4 0 0

leather bindings 1 0 3 0 0 0

154

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Scar initiation wide narrow dip straight into curve curved twisted Total number

juxtaposed wood total nr 41 11 2 4 7 16 81

% 51 14 2 5 9 20

juxtaposed bone/ antler total nr % 25 46 6 11 4 7 4 7 10 19 5 9 54

male wood

male antler

total nr 10 4 0 0 2 0 16

total nr 33 25 16 3 5 0 82

% 63 25 0 0 13 0

% 40 30 20 4 6 0

male split wood leather bindings total nr 31 4 3 4 17 13 72

% 43 6 4 6 24 18

total nr 2 0 1 0 0 2 5

% 40 0 20 0 0 40

Figure 6.74. Number of tool parts per scar initiation category

juxtaposed antler juxtaposed wood Scar termination total nr total nr % % snap 1 1 1 1 feather 21 75 30 41 hinge 12 12 17 7 step 17 55 24 30 vertical 10 13 14 7 superposition 10 26 14 14 Total number 71 182

male wood total nr % 2 9 11 50 1 5 7 32 0 0 1 5 22

male antler total nr % 2 1 51 35 8 6 58 40 1 1 24 17 144

male split wood leather bindings total nr total nr % % 1 1 1 4 49 14 39 56 13 3 10 12 36 6 29 24 12 1 10 4 15 0 12 0 126 25

male wood

male antler

male split wood

total nr 0 6 8 14

total nr 21 56 35 112

Figure 6.75. Number of tool parts per scar termination category

juxtaposed wood Scar intrusiveness total nr % intrusive 15 15 moderate 54 55 abrupt 29 30 Total number 98

juxtaposed bone/ antler total nr % 3 10 16 53 11 37 30

% 0 43 57

% 19 50 31

total nr 13 39 33 85

% 15 46 39

leather bindings total nr 3 7 12 22

% 14 32 55

Figure 6.76. Number of tool parts per scar intrusiveness category

should one be careful not to attribute the sliced (into-scalar) scars to the use of bindings. The tendency towards an association between wooden hafts and dip initiations is not confirmed. For scar termination, the pattern is confirmed (Fig. 6.75), except for male wood-hafted tools on which the small amount of superposing scars is surprising. Superposing scars are also less frequent on the male antler-hafted tools with regard to the initial toolset, but their presence remains obvious. The value of the scar termination variable for drawing a distinction between hafting arrangements is thus reduced, but it remains valid given the highly similar pattern for the other arrangements in comparison with the initial toolset. Scar size and definition are not dealt with given the lack of significant differences in the initial toolset. Use motion counteracts the impact of the hafting arrangement on scar depth: deep scars no longer predominate on male hafted tools. Scar intrusiveness was not a very significant attribute, but there was a tendency towards the absence of intrusive scars on tools hafted in an arrangement without bindings. A similar tendency is observed here: intrusive scars are absent for tools hafted in male wooden hafts (Fig. 6.76). Such tendency is not observed for antler hafts. This reduces

the value of scar intrusiveness for identifying the hafting arrangement. Male-hafted tools proved to distinguish themselves from other arrangements on the basis of the variety of “special” scar distributions (Fig. 6.77). Alternating, bifacial and continuous scar distributions were observed in association with male arrangements only. Here, this view needs to be partially amended. Bifacial scarring remains typical for male hafted tools, but alternating and continuous distributions are occasionally observed on other tools as well, be it with very small extent (one exception: alternating scars for juxtaposed wooden haft). There is no link between the occurrence of these distributions and a particular use motion or hafting material. The use motion thus causes a minor distortion, but overall the identified differences remain. As expected, the (inverse) skewed saw scar pattern occurs only when bindings are used, while crushed initiations and scars forming a clear intrusion/notch are most frequent on male hafted tools (Tables 6). Scar interpretability was not a very significant attribute for the initial toolset, but the scarring on male hafted tools (including wrapping) again tends to be interpretable with a high degree of certainty. Only tools hafted on juxtaposed or in male split wooden

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Scar distribution even & run-together even & wide uneven & run-together uneven & wide alternating bifacial continuous distinct patches Total number

juxtaposed wood total nr % 3 2 0 0 73 54 16 12 17 13 0 0 2 1 25 18 136

juxtaposed antler/bone total nr % 1 2 0 0 25 56 9 20 1 2 0 0 3 7 6 13 45

male wood

male antler

total nr 0 0 9 2 0 0 6 0 17

total nr 2 0 55 17 0 2 5 3 84

% 0 0 53 12 0 0 35 0

% 2 0 65 20 0 2 6 4

male split wood total nr 1 0 37 13 2 0 5 17 75

% 1 0 49 17 3 0 7 23

155

leather bindings total nr % 1 6 4 24 7 41 3 18 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 6 17

DMright

VPbutt

VPleft

VPright

VMleft

VMright

Male split - wood

DMleft

Juxtaposed - antler

Exp. 9/2 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 16/6 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 14/10 Exp. 9/3 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 16/14 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 16/11 Exp. 16/12 Exp. 16/22 Exp. 20/1

DPright

Juxtaposed - wood

Exp. ID

DPleft

Haft type

DPbutt

Figure 6.77. Number of tool parts per scar distribution category

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2

2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 2

1 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 2

2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6.78. Retouch presence and coarseness per relevant tool part (scale 1 to 4). Presence of binding scars per tool part (figures in bold with double frame)

hafts exhibit tool parts which are difficult to interpret (little certainty). Finally, some more light still needs to be shed on the impact of binding direction on the scar location. Given the size of the toolset, there is information for 17 tools in total. The issue requires data concerning the presence and coarseness of retouch, and fortunately retouch remained limited (Fig. 6.78). No relationship can be distinguished between the presence of binding scars and the presence and coarseness of retouch. There is no consistent pattern with regard to scar location and binding direction either. The impact of edge angle on such a pattern was examined, but did not prove conclusive. Therefore, it needs to be concluded that the binding direction has no obvious impact on scar location. Probably the binding direction influences only the location of scars which are formed during the hafting process itself, not the ones which are formed during

subsequent use. This should be examined during additional experimentation. 6.3.2.3 Conclusion It was demonstrated that use motion does not counteract the identified impact of the hafting arrangement on the process of hafting trace formation. Only for scarring had the significance of some attributes to be re-evaluated. “Binding scars” proved to occur on male-hafted tools which were used in rotating motions, in particular when edges remained unretouched. Scar depth appeared less significant than initially assumed. Notwithstanding these slight modifications, the hafting arrangement proved to have an identifiable impact on the formation of hafting traces. Therefore, it can be argued that the hafting arrangement can be identified on the basis of the investigation of macro- and microscopic traces.

156

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

6.3.3 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria In order to evaluate the impact of the hafting arrangement on the formation process of hafting traces, individual attributes were systematically dealt with. This is always somewhat artificial, but it was necessary for examining trace Trace attribute number of polishes polish frequency polish morphology opposition concentration haft polish concentration binding polish

patterning and identifying diagnostic attributes. The most valuable attributes for identifying the hafting arrangement used are included in fig. 6.79. Though such a summary is always a compromise, it may form a useful aid for hafting interpretation.

Juxtaposed hafting

Male split hafting POLISH

Male hafting

two: haft + bindings

two: haft + bindings

one: haft

haft = bindings

haft > bindings

only haft

cf. usewear

cf. usewear

cf. usewear

dorsal versus ventral

centre tool versus edges

no opposition

dorsal medial ridge, bulb

dorsal ridges, medial edges, ventral butt

none

edges

none

no real concentrations

ventral contact: most proximal & haft limit dorsal contact: dorsal ridges

Leather wrapping one: bindings; sometimes two: prehension polish only bindings (> prehension polish) cf. usewear no opposition (only with butt: prehension polish)

SCARRING scar morphology * sliced

absent (exception: perforating, drilling) high

present

present

present

low

low

present

present

* straight into curved

present

present

* curved

present

present

* twisted

present

present

present present tends towards “rare” present present tends towards “rare” not distinctive not distinctive

present present tends towards “rare” present present tends towards “rare” not distinctive not distinctive

tends towards “rare” tends towards “rare” present present tends towards “rare” present not distinctive not distinctive

present present tends towards “rare” limited presence present tends towards “rare” not distinctive not distinctive

present not distinctive

present not distinctive

tends towards “rare” not distinctive

present not distinctive

tends towards “rare” absent rare

rare absent rare

present present present

absent absent rare

rare

rare

present

rare

present

present

absent

present

rare moderate

rare moderate

present high

rare high

* crushing morphological detail * sliced into scalar scars

absent (exception: perforating, drilling)

low present

scar initiation

scar termination * snap * feather * hinge * step * vertical * superposition scar size scar depth scar intrusiveness * intrusive scars scar definition scar distribution * alternating * bifacial * continuous scar pattern * crushed initiations * (inverse) skewed saw pattern * clear intrusion / notch scar interpretability

Figure 6.79. Distinctive traits per hafting arrangement

absent (exception: perforating, drilling) absent (exception: perforating, drilling) absent (exception: perforating, drilling)

present present present

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

6.4

INFLUENCE OF USE OF WRAPPING ON THE FORMATION PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES

The use of a piece of leather in which the tool is wrapped before being mounted in or on a haft may influence the subsequent production of hafting traces. Such wrapping has certain advantages on a functional level: it reduces the amount of friction in the haft and improves fixation, it reduces the risk of bindings being cut during use, it allows the use of tools with differing sizes in one and the same haft (for male hafts in particular), etc. Its use is attested to on an ethnographic level: in Siberia for instance, scrapers are often fixed in the hole of the wooden haft with the aid of a piece of leather (Beyries 1997). Here, it is examined how such a wrapping influences the formation process of hafting traces, if combined with one of the previously described hafting arrangements. 6.4.1

Exploration and identification of impact wrapping use Sets of two tools are examined, one tool with and one without wrapping, next to a few tools with a partial wrapping (Fig. 6.80). Twenty-three stone tools, which were used for different tasks in different hafting arrangements, are

ID

HT HM TP

TD

AP

included. In the table, tools without wrapping can be found above the double line; those with wrapping underneath it. For one scraping tool (exp. 10/24), two comparable tools with wrapping are included: one with a complete wrapping (exp. 10/23), one with a partial wrapping (exp. 10/36). In most cases, the face in contact with the haft is the same, except in two examples (exp. 10/32 versus exp. 10/21, and exp. 13/11 versus 13/5). This needs to be taken into account during the analysis. Use durations are comparable apart from in two toolsets: exp. 10/26 and 9/1, and exp. 10/3 and 10/35. 6.4.1.1 Macroscopic analysis When the scarring that resulted from a fracture is excluded, it is evident that scarring is predominant on tools hafted without a wrapping (Fig. 6.81). This suggests that a wrapping reduces the chance of scarring. Whether the wrapping is partial or complete does not seem to matter. At first sight, a wrapping has no impact on gloss formation, but in reality complete wrappings have. As mentioned earlier, gloss is most intense on the face in contact with the haft. In the case of partial wrappings, there is still a direct contact with the haft, and thus an equal chance of gloss formation. For complete wrappings, gloss formation is far more reduced.

Haft Wrapping Bindings material wood 0 leather wood 0 leather

Haft contact dorsal dorsal

Activity

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/4

J J

D D

LD LD

Tr Tr

Pe Pe

Exp. 9/2

J

D

LD

Tr

Pe

wood

0

leather

Exp. 10/26 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 16/9

J J J J J J J

D D D D D D D

LD T T T LD T T

Tr A A A Tr A A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

antler wood antler wood wood wood wood

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

linen leather leather wet leather linen leather linen

Exp. 16/17

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

0

leather

ventral

scraping

Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7

J J

I I

LD LD

Tr Tr

Pe Pe

wood wood

leather leather

leather leather

dorsal dorsal

adzing adzing

Exp. 16/13

J

D

LD

Tr

Pe

wood

leather

leather

ventral

adzing

Exp. 9/1 Exp.10/34 Exp. 10/35 Exp. 10/23 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/21 Exp. 13/5 Exp. 13/14

J J J J J J J J

D D D I D I I I

LD T T LD T T T T

Tr A A Tr A A A A

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

antler wood antler wood wood wood wood wood

Exp. 16/18

J

D

T

A

Pe

wood

Figure 6.80. Experimental details

ventral

adzing adzing adzing

dorsal adzing ventral chiselling ventral chiselling ventral scraping dorsal scraping ventral scraping ventral scraping

leather linen dorsal adzing leather leather ventral chiselling leather leather ventral chiselling wet leather wet leather ventral scraping leather wet leather ventral scraping leather linen ventral scraping leather leather dorsal scraping leather linen ventral scraping leather

157

leather

ventral

scraping

H:min: Material Tooltype sec worked 0:30:30 oak scraper 0:23:52 oak scraper earth, scraper 1:00:00 stone, etc. 0:02:11 oak scraper 0:30:00 oak scraper 0:25:00 oak scraper 0:30:54 oak scraper 0:31:22 oak scraper 0:20:00 schist scraper 1:15:00 dry wood scraper fresh retouched 1:30:00 sheep hide blade 0:20:14 oak scraper 0:39:25 oak scraper earth and scraper 2:00:00 plants 0:36:32 oak scraper 0:24:47 ash scraper 0:03:32 ash scraper 0:30:34 oak scraper 0:30:04 oak scraper 0:30:25 oak scraper 0:13:00 schist scraper 2:30:00 schist scraper wetted scraper 1:30:00 sheep hide

BUTT

partial

VMedge

complete

VPedge

complete partial

VPbutt

partial

DMedge

complete

DMridge

none

Exp. ID

DPedge

Wrapping

DPridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

158

clear limit

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 9/2 Exp. 10/26 Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 16/9 Exp. 16/17 Exp. 1/6 Exp. 1/7 Exp. 16/13 Exp. 9/1 Exp. 10/34 Exp. 10/35 Exp. 10/23 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/21 Exp. 13/5 Exp. 13/14 Exp. 16/18

2 402 212 202 402 402 402 202 201 204 201 2 402 202 344 202 343 0 203 401 202 203 202

0 0 0 0 202 0 0 203 0 0 204 0 202 0 342 0 0 201 0 0 0 0 202

403 403 402 403 401 401 401 401 401 402 0 0 2 402 341 401 0 402 201 0 0 401 0

0 0 0 342 202 0 0 0 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201

403 404 402 344 402 401 401 403 401 403 402 0 1 401 402 401 401 402 401 401 0 402 401

0 0 0 0 401 402 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344 0 342 0 0 0 0 0 0

402 401 0 401 401 401 402 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 342 0 0 402 0 401 0 0 0

0 403 0 344 402 401 404 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 403 401 401 0 0 0

2 0 1 8 401 1 0 0 0 201 0 201 404 0 344 401 342 0 0 402 0 201 0

both both dorsal both both 0 both dorsal both dorsal 0 dorsal 0 0 both 0 0 both both 0 0 both dorsal

Figure 6.81. Macroscopic scarring intensity per hafted tool part

6.4.1.2 Microscopic analysis For the microscopic analysis, two tools – exp. 10/26 and 10/35 – are excluded because of their short use duration (no detailed analysis). Because of that, the corresponding tools exp. 10/3 and 9/1 need to be excluded too. Polish When the number of polished tool parts is compared between the three groups of tools – complete wrapping, partial wrapping, and no wrapping – there are no marked differences. A wrapping does not reduce or increase the number of polished tool parts. For polish morphology, the use of a wrapping causes a mixture of polishes on faces in contact with the haft. While the haft material determines the polish morphology in some zones – generally protruding ones – it will be a combination of both materials in other zones, while in a last zone the polish morphology will be determined by the leather wrapping. The “mixed polish” (i.e., the second scenario) is somewhat smooth, dull to moderately bright and intrusive (Pl. 33). While the smooth aspect is determined by the wooden haft, the brightness and intrusive character are determined by the leather wrapping. When the impact of the wooden haft is more dominant, the mixed polish can be smooth and bright and remain restricted to the outer edge. This usually occurs in combination with rougher and more intrusive versions (Table 6.1). While both polishes can be

located on ridges, the resulting polish morphology depends on ridge protrusion (when there is dorsal haft contact) and on the morphology of the face in contact with the haft. The polish with a dominant wood impact is located on the most prominent points. On surfaces, the situation is different. The leather generally determines the polish formation: the polish is rough but (moderately) bright and intrusive. Only the bright appearance is a consequence of the presence of wood. The presence of a piece of leather between the bindings and the stone tool has no major impact. The polish intrudes only a little more than would be expected. The combination of vegetal bindings and a leather wrapping results in a peculiar polish with smooth and rough aspects (it cannot really be subdivided into one of the two morphology categories). At first, the rough aspect dominates, but when polish development increases it becomes a mixture of both. The polish is generally moderately bright and follows the microtopography, again in a slightly more intrusive way than when vegetal bindings are used alone. The combination of a wet leather wrapping and wet leather bindings causes a rough but bright polish. The combination of a leather wrapping and wet leather bindings does not result in a distinctively different polish. Consequently, polishes resulting from wrapping use in combination with another hafting material are truly mixed. The polish development and linkage do not differ notably between the groups (Fig. 6.82), aside from perhaps a minor

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

reduction in polish development when a wrapping is used. A wrapping does tend to increase the polish extension and intrusiveness. Polish Polish development linkage poor poor moderate high poor moderate moderate high moderate high high moderate extensive high Total number

complete partial no wrapping wrapping wrapping total nr % total nr % total nr % 11 7 18 14 15 16 24 18 32 32 38 28 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 26 13 40 34 28 35 2 4 10 3 9 9 6 2 5 8 4 4 5 3 3 7 6 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 76 47 114

Figure 6.82. Number recorded per polish development and linkage category

Scarring The observation that a wrapping reduces the amount of scarring is confirmed on a microscopic level. When noninterpretable scarring is excluded, the average number of damaged tool parts per tool (Fig. 6.83) differs significantly when a complete wrapping is used. Only five tool parts are damaged on average instead of 7. The use of a partial wrapping has no impact because it only prevents direct contact between bindings and tool. Not surprisingly, differences are mainly situated on the edges. While on average only one of the edges of wrapped tools is damaged, both edges generally exhibit at least some scarring when a wrapping

Scar location Butt DPbutt DPedge DPridge DMedge DMridge VPbutt VPedge VMedge Total number of damaged tool parts Number of tools included Average of damaged tool parts per tool

complete wrapping total per nr tool 1 0 2 0 6 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 1 0 8 1 6 1

partial wrapping total per nr tool 2 1 2 1 6 2 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 1 5 1 5 1

no wrapping total per nr tool 1 0 4 0 16 2 1 0 14 2 1 0 3 0 15 2 12 1

32

27

67

6

4

9

5

7

7

Figure 6.83. Number of tool parts per scar location

159

is absent. The reductive impact of a complete wrapping on scar formation is thus obvious. There is also a reduction in scarring intensity (Fig. 6.84). complete wrapping total nr % low 14 44 moderate 7 22 high 10 31 extensive 1 3 Total number 32 Scarring intensity

partial wrapping total nr % 11 41 7 26 9 33 0 0 27

no wrapping total nr 23 23 14 7 67

% 34 34 21 10

Figure 6.84. Number of tool parts per scarring intensity category

A wrapping also appears to influence scar morphology (Fig. 6.85). If a complete and a partial wrapping are compared with the absence of a wrapping, the three scar morphologies prove to be notably different: sliced scars, nibbling scars and crushing. The number of sliced scars reduces when a wrapping is used, but not significantly. By contrast, nibbling scars are more frequent. Since these scars are in fact too small to be attributed to a specific category, this evidence suggests an increase of tiny almost invisible scars. The amount of crushing reduces significantly. This is a consequence of the edge protection which a wrapping provides. Quite surprisingly, the number of sliced scars and amount of crushing increases when a partial wrapping is used in comparison to no wrapping. The importance of sliced scars can be attributed to the lack of retouch on the hafted edges of exp. 16/18, while crushing is a consequence of tool use. The tools with a partial wrapping are practically all used in high-pressure motions on wood. This obviously explains the importance of crushing, especially given its predominant location on the butt. For the more detailed morphological features, elongated scars are present only when no wrapping is used. Whether this is sufficiently significant for the identification of wrapping use will have to be demonstrated. Only one relevant observation can be made for the scar initiation: the infrequent occurrence of narrow initiations when a complete complete wrapping total nr % scalar 24 47 trapezoidal 8 16 triangular 4 8 rectangular 1 2 irregular 4 8 sliced 1 2 nibbling 7 14 crushing 2 4 Total number 51 Scar morphology

partial no wrapping wrapping total nr % total nr % 19 54 44 50 4 18 9 17 0 5 0 5 2 3 5 3 1 6 2 6 6 5 14 5 0 5 0 5 11 13 26 12 43 109

Figure 6.85. Number recorded per scar morphology

160

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

wrapping is used (Fig. 6.86). The edge protection provided by a wrapping distributes the pressure over a larger surface, which counteracts the formation of scars with narrow initiation. complete partial no wrapping wrapping wrapping total nr % total nr % total nr % wide 10 9 33 22 23 33 narrow 2 8 13 4 20 13 dip 1 0 4 2 0 4 straight into curved 4 2 7 9 5 7 curved 6 3 11 13 8 11 twisted 1 2 2 2 5 2 (missing) 21 16 31 47 40 31 Total number 45 40 101 Scar initiation

Figure 6.86. Number recorded per scar initiation category

For the scar termination, too, the “smoothing” effect of a wrapping is visible (Fig. 6.87). There is an increase in less abrupt terminations (e.g., feather), while superposing scars are rare. This is obviously linked to the rarity of crushing. There are no noteworthy differences in scar size, depth, definition and intrusiveness. As regards scar distribution, the absence of continuous scars when a complete wrapping is used is notable. In this case, scars with crushing at their initiation are also absent. complete wrapping total nr % snap 3 6 feather 25 50 hinge 7 14 step 11 22 vertical 1 2 superposition 3 6 Total number 50 Scar termination

partial no wrapping wrapping total nr % total nr % 2 4 4 3 13 48 27 39 5 13 10 10 14 38 29 31 3 7 6 6 11 14 23 11 48 124

Figure 6.87. Number recorded per scar termination category

Bright spots No impact of the use of a wrapping on the formation of bright spots can be noted (Tables 6). Striations No impact from the use of a wrapping on the formation of striations is visible. Hafting striations are rare, as always. Rounding There is a small increase in rounding when a wrapping is used. However, it remains generally rare.

6.4.1.3 Conclusion The evidence shows that the use of a wrapping has a notable impact on the formation of hafting polish (i.e., morphology mainly) and scarring (i.e., intensity and morphology mainly), while having a minor impact on rounding. Generally, the use of a wrapping has a smoothing effect. The use of a partial wrapping has no real effect, apart from some influence on the polish morphology of the zone in question. 6.4.2

Systematic verification of impact wrapping use: use motion and material worked The impact of tool use does not need to be tested, given the inclusion of different tool uses in the previous section. 6.4.3

Systematic verification of impact wrapping use: hafting arrangement The above exploration of the impact of wrapping use was based on juxtaposed arrangements and should be tested for other arrangements as well. However, no appropriate toolset is available to examine this issue. For male arrangements, there is one set of two tools only (i.e., one with and one without a wrapping). Expansion of the experimental reference collection is thus required before this issue can be properly addressed. Given the distinctiveness of the identified pattern, it is expected that the effect of a wrapping will be independent of the hafting arrangement. Trace attribute MACROSCOPIC scarring gloss MICROSCOPIC POLISH polish morphology polish development

Wrapping decrease decrease

mixed polish not significant slightly more extensive (and polish extension intrusive) MICROSCOPIC SCARRING number of damaged tool decrease (significant) parts decrease scar intensity scar morphology * sliced minor decrease (insignifcant) * nibbling increase * crushing decrease (significant) * elongated absent (needs confirmation) scar initiation * narrow decrease scar termination * non-abrupt (snap, feather) increase * abrupt (hinge, step) decrease * superposition decrease ROUNDING minor increase Figure 6.88. Distinctive traits for the identification of a wrapping use (for juxtaposed arrangements)

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

6.4.4 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria The data presented allow the identified wrapping impact on the formation of hafting traces to be summarised (Fig. 6.88). For now, this summary goes for juxtaposed arrangements only as new experiments are required for its further verification. For valid interpretations, the criteria in the table need to be combined with traits proposed earlier for other hafting aspects. Obviously, tool use needs to be taken into account at all times.

6.5

161

6.5.1.2 Microscopic analysis Polish The impact of resin on polish formation is apparent when the number of polished tool parts is compared (Fig. 6.90). Less than half of the tool parts are polished when resin is added! The main reduction concerns surface polish, while the main concentrations are located on ridges and ventral edges. The ridges are zones for which some contact with the haft material may be expected, while the resin coverage on the edges may have been incomplete. Indeed, practically all polished tool parts on exp. 22/16, and to a lesser extent on exp. 22/17, are attributed to intrusive particles of the material worked (Table 6.22). These two tools are responsible for more than half of the total number of polished tool parts for the resin-hafted tools.

INFLUENCE OF USE OF RESIN ON THE FORMATION PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES

Resin-hafted tools are dealt with separately, given the considerable impact of resin use on the formation of hafting traces (see chapter 3).

If the polish causes are compared, all polish on the nonresin-hafted tools was attributed to hafting, while 13 of

6.5.1

Exploration and identification of impact resin use Ten tools are included, all fabricated out of fine-grained flint (Fig. 6.89). The haft type and haft material remained constant. Two tool uses are compared: perforating fresh bone and grooving dry wood. Tools are fixed with either bindings or resin to permit a comparison between the resulting trace patterns.

Polish location Butt DMedge DMridge DMsurf DPbutt DPedge DPridge DPsurf VMedge VMsurf VPbulb VPbutt VPedge VPsurf Total number Number of tools included Average of polished tool parts per tool

6.5.1.1 Macroscopic analysis There is no distinctive impact on the formation of macroscopic scarring (Table 4.1). Scarring is more intense on resin-hafted perforating tools than on the others, but this is not confirmed for the grooving tools. The difference in scarring intensity is due to the amount and coarseness of retouch: the resin-hafted perforating tools are barely retouched, while retouch is more extensive on the other perforating tools and the grooving tools. Macroscopic scarring is thus not a valid distinctive criterion for resin use. Gloss formation proves to be counteracted by the use of resin (Table 4.2), and this is particularly obvious for the grooving tools: the number of tools with gloss formation reduces from all three (several tool parts) to one (one tool part). The perforating tools show a less obvious pattern.

ID Exp. 22/14 Exp. 22/15 Exp. 22/16 Exp. 22/17 Exp. 22/40 Exp. 22/42 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/45 Exp. 22/46 Exp. 22/47

HT HM MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS

D D I I D D D I I I

resin total nr 2 2 3 0 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 25 5

11

% 8 8 12 0 4 8 12 8 12 4 4 4 12 4

5

Figure 6.90. Number of tool parts per location

TP

TD

AP

Bindings

Fixation

T T T T T T T T T T

A A A A A A A A A A

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

fresh intestines wet leather 0 0 leather leather leather 0 0 0

0 0 resin resin 0 0 0 resin resin resin

Figure 6.89. Experimental details

no resin total nr % 4 7 4 7 4 7 2 4 3 5 3 5 5 9 4 7 5 9 4 7 5 9 4 7 5 9 5 9 57 5

Haft contact both both both both both both both both both both

Activity perforating perforating perforating perforating grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

H:min: sec 0:30:00 0:35:00 0:40:00 0:50:00 1:00:00 0:58:00 1:00:00 1:00:00 1:00:00 1:02:00

Material Worked fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone dry wood dry wood dry wood dry wood dry wood dry wood

Tooltype perforator perforator perforator perforator burin burin burin burin burin burin

162

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

those instances on the resin-hafted tools were attributed to intruding particles of the material being worked and three to friction during de-hafting. Only nine remaining tool parts were classified in the general ”hafting” category. Resin thus significantly reduces the amount of hafting polish, aside from potential friction with intruding particles of the material worked in the case of incomplete resin coverage. When polish resulting from intruding particles of the material worked is excluded, the polish development and linkage can be compared (Fig. 6.91). Wood polish occurs only once on the resin-hafted tools, in a poorly developed stage. Resin thus complicates haft material identifications (see chapter 3). Most polish on resin-hafted tools is due to friction with resin particles: a rough and relatively dull friction polish (Pl. 154-156) which may sometimes appear flat and which is easy to recognise. It often occurs in patches, frequently on the surface. Its location is not determined by tool morphology (e.g., prominent points) as its formation depends on the presence of resin particles. This leads to an often disparate distribution within the hafted area.30 no resin resin Polish Polish Material development linkage responsible total nr % total nr % wood 1 0 1 0 poor resin 0 2 0 15 wood 24 36 1 poor 8 leather 6 0 moderate 9 0 resin 0 5 0 38 wood 25 37 0 0 leather 4 0 moderate moderate 6 0 resin 0 4 0 31 moderate wood 7 0 10 0 high high resin 0 1 0 8 Total number 67 13 Figure 6.91. Number of tool parts per polish development, linkage and responsible material category30

Resin thus significantly limits the formation of hafting traces. Polishes from a haft material contact are rare to nonexistent, and haft material identifications are determined by chance: they depend on the amount and intensity of the contact between stone tool and haft. The resin itself results in a distinctive polish which is not comparable to any other known polish. Its mere occurrence indicates resin use. The possibility that intruding particles of the material worked cause polish determined by the material being worked always needs to be taken into account, especially in the case of male split hafts. It depends on the amount of resin used to fix the tool in its haft. When the stone tool is completely covered, no friction with intruding particles of the material worked occurs. Resin in combination with male hafts also does not allow polish formation from intruding particles of the material worked, just as the bindings used in the case 30

The number of tool parts does not correspond to fig. 6.90 following the need for a further subdivision into smaller tool parts in the recording table.

of juxtaposed hafts significantly reduce the chance of such particles. Nevertheless, such polishes may hamper interpretations and it may not always be easy to distinguish this polish from remnants of haft material polish. After all, its location and distribution depends on the absence of resin, and tool morphology has no impact. The identification of resin use thus necessitates that haft material identifications are made cautiously. When the observed polish corresponds to the material worked (see use-wear evidence) and the inferred haft is of a male split type, all haft material identifications will remain uncertain. Only if another haft type was definitely used can a haft material interpretation be based on the observed polish, even if it proves to be caused by the same material as the use-wear polish. Scarring For scarring, there is no apparent difference in the number of damaged tool parts (Fig. 6.92). Even more tool parts are damaged for resin-hafted tools, as a consequence of the generally more limited retouch on the resin-hafted tools included (Table 3.3). This also resulted in a slightly higher scarring intensity on resin-hafted tools. If tools are compared per use, resin-hafted perforating tools mainly prove to be damaged. These were hardly retouched (the hafted part of exp. 22/17 is unretouched), which allowed extensive scarring. The grooving tools show no marked difference. The evidence is thus inconclusive and there is no firm basis for suggesting that scarring would be more intense on resin-hafted tools; on the contrary, resin-hafted grooving tools are less damaged than other grooving tools. Scar location DPedge DMedge VPedge VMedge Total number Number of tools included Average per tool

no resin 5 3 4 3 15 5 3

resin 7 5 4 3 19 5 4

Figure 6.92. Number of tool parts per location

Nor is the scar morphology distinctly different between the two toolsets. There is only an absence of irregular scars and crushing on the non-resin hafted tools, but such scars are also rare on resin-hafted tools (one tool part per tool). A minor difference also exists for the morphological detail: elongated scars occur only on non-resin hafted tools (one tool part), while balloon-type scars occur only on resinhafted tools (one tool part). Given their rarity, this difference is negligible. No notable differences in scar initiation occur, but a few relevant observations can be made for scar terminations (Fig. 6.93). There is a reduction in feather terminations on resin-hafted tools compared to non-resin-hafted tools, most probably to the advantage of snap terminations, while there is a reduction in step terminations in favour of hinge terminations. Scars are thus more dispersed over the different scar termination categories for resin-hafted tools.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Scar termination snap feather hinge step vertical Total number

no resin total nr 0 11 1 11 1 24

% 0 46 4 46 4

resin total nr 5 13 5 10 1 34

% 15 38 15 29 3

Figure 6.93. Number recorded per scar termination category

For scar size, there are fewer very large scars on resinhafted tools and more medium-sized scars (Fig. 6.94). This implies more limited pressure exerted on the edges. Scar size small medium large very large Total number

no resin total nr 12 5 2 13 32

% 38 16 6 41

resin total nr 14 14 2 10 40

% 35 35 5 25

Figure 6.94. Number recorded per scar size category

There are no differences in scar depth: deep scars are lacking in both arrangements, but scars on resin-hafted tools tend to be better defined. For the scar distribution within one tool part, run-together scars in an alternating pattern occur only on resin-hafted tools in a significant percentage (21% of the damaged tool parts). No further pattern details were recorded for these tools. Finally, there are no marked differences in scar interpretability. Bright spots The bright spots exhibit obvious differences. The only bright spots on the resin-hafted tools are attributed to friction with resin particles. They are rough, moderately bright to bright and well-developed, and they conform to the resin friction polish mentioned above, but they are isolated. Flint-on-flint bright spots occur on the non-resin-hafted tools only. Some isolated well-developed polish spots occur on the perforating tools and were attributed to bone. They are again the result of friction with intruding particles of the material worked due to incomplete resin coverage. The impact of resin on the process of bright spot formation is thus significant: instead of flint-on-flint bright spots, very distinct resin friction bright spots occur. Striations Striations are rare. The resin-hafted perforating tools do not show striations, in contrast to the corresponding non-resin hafted tools. One of the resin-hafted grooving tools (exp. 22/45) shows one striation on its dorsal medial right edge. It was attributed to friction with a resin particle, most probably during hafting. Its oblique orientation supports this:

163

after all, a tool is not extracted from a male split haft in a linear fashion, but it is loosened by moving it back and forth (laterally) in its haft before extraction. This friction perfectly accounts for the evidence observed. Consequently, the use of resin reduces the chance of (the in any case rare) hafting striations. Only during de-hafting can striations be expected. Rounding No rounding could be observed on any of the tools. 6.5.1.3 Conclusion The evidence is believed to be very clear: resin use has a significant impact on the formation of hafting traces. There is a considerable reduction in the amount of polish, and the kind of polish that forms is completely different from what is expected for the corresponding arrangement not involving resin. In addition, a totally different type of bright spots forms on resin-hafted tools, while striations were nearly absent. 6.5.2

Systematic verification of impact resin use: use motion and material worked The impact of tool use was examined in the previous section, given that two use motions and materials worked were included. A more elaborate test is not considered useful because the evidence did not show any influence of tool use on the identified impact of resin. In addition, the subsequent toolset also includes different tool motions. 6.5.3

Systematic verification of impact resin use: haft type Juxtaposed and male hafts are now included (Fig. 6.95). For the juxtaposed arrangements, the impact of resin can be only partially tested as tools were first fixed with bindings on top of which resin was added: there is only an indirect contact with resin. Perforating and drilling tools are included, and one material is being worked (fresh bone). 6.5.3.1 Macroscopic analysis Scarring decreases when resin is used (Table 4.1). The unretouched hafted parts of resin-hafted perforating tools did not show extensive scar formation, while the corresponding non-resin-hafted tools were more intensely retouched and showed more scarring. A similar reduction takes place on the drilling tools, but it is less convincing given their more extensive retouch in comparison to exp. 22/2 and 22/3. Round the haft limit scarring is also less frequent when resin is used. On exp. 22/19, even macroscopic ridge damage occurred. For gloss, the expected pattern is inverted (Fig. 6.96). While a reduction in gloss formation was observed for the resin-hafted tools of the reference toolset, gloss formation clearly increased on this toolset for both hafting arrangements. Of course, gloss formation on juxtaposed hafted tools is actually a consequence of haft contact instead of the addition of resin. Nevertheless, gloss presence/absence or intensity proves an invalid indicator for the use of resin.

164

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

ID Exp. 22/2 Exp. 22/3 Exp. 22/4 Exp. 22/5 Exp. 22/19 Exp. 22/20 Exp. 22/21 Exp. 22/22 Exp. 22/23 Exp. 22/24

HT HM TP TD AP J J J J M M M M M M

D D D D D D D I I I

T T T T T T T T T T

A A A A A A A A A A

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

H:min: Material Haft Haft Tooltype Activity Bindings Fixation sec worked contact material wood wet leather 0 ventral drilling 0:30:00 fresh bone drillbit wood fresh intestines 0 ventral drilling 0:15:00 fresh bone drillbit wood leather resin ventral drilling 0:20:00 fresh bone drillbit wood tendons resin ventral drilling 0:25:00 fresh bone drillbit antler 0 0 both perforating 0:40:00 fresh bone perforator antler 0 0 both perforating 0:45:00 fresh bone perforator antler 0 0 both perforating 0:40:00 fresh bone perforator antler 0 resin both perforating 1:00:00 fresh bone perforator antler 0 resin both perforating 0:45:00 fresh bone perforator antler 0 resin both perforating 0:35:00 fresh bone perforator

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

yes

DMridge

no

DPsurf

yes

DPedge

no

Exp. ID

DPridge

Resin

DPbutt

Figure 6.95. Experimental details

clear limit

Exp. 22/2 Exp. 22/3 Exp. 22/4 Exp. 22/5 Exp. 22/19 Exp. 22/20 Exp. 22/21 Exp. 22/22 Exp. 22/23 Exp. 22/24

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 402 0 0 8 401 402 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401 0

402 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 401 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 ventral ventral 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 6.96. Macroscopic gloss intensity per relevant tool part

6.5.3.2 Microscopic analysis Polish The polish pattern is again obvious and confirms the considerable reduction in the number of polished tool parts (Fig. 6.97). While an average of ten tool parts is polished on tools hafted without resin, this reduces to seven tool parts when resin is used. The most important reduction is observed in the dorsal medial zone and on the ventral medial edges. The juxtaposed arrangement with a direct contact with haft and bindings is responsible for most of the polish. In addition, all non-resin polishes on the resin-hafted tools occur on those with a juxtaposed haft, exp. 22/4 and 22/5 (Fig. 6.98), which are the only ones showing traces from a contact with haft and bindings (Pl. 204). By contrast, resin polish occurs on only one tool part (exp. 22/4), while being clearly present on the resin-hafted grooving tools. This shows that an indirect contact with resin does not really influence trace formation; a haft and binding polish may still form and friction with resin is limited. When resin is used as a true intermediate, the formation of hafting traces is drastically disturbed: a resin polish forms instead of a haft polish. Interestingly, a resin polish never follows the microtopography; it is present either on the surface

Polish location Butt DPbutt DPedge DPridge DPsurf DMedge DMridge DMsurf VPbutt VPbulb VPedge VPsurf VMedge VMsurf Total number Number of tools included Average of damaged tool parts per tool

no resin total nr % 2 4 3 6 5 10 4 8 2 4 5 10 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 6 5 10 3 6 4 8 3 6 51 5 10

resin total nr 1 2 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 4 1 2 35 5 7

Figure 6.97. Number of tool parts per polish location

% 3 6 11 11 6 6 6 3 6 11 11 11 3 6

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Material no resin - juxtaposed responsible total nr % haft 3 12 poor bindings 4 15 haft 4 poor 15 bindings 5 moderate 19 resin 0 0 haft 2 8 bindings 2 moderate 8 moderate resin 0 0 high resin 0 0 haft 4 15 high moderate bindings 2 8 Total number 26

Polish development

Polish linkage

resin - juxtaposed total nr % 0 0 0 0 5 22 7 30 0 0 3 13 4 17 1 4 0 0 3 13 0 0 23

no resin - male total nr % 1 3 0 0 13 38 0 0 0 0 15 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 34

165

resin - male total nr % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 47 0 0 0 0 5 33 3 20 0 0 0 0 15

Figure 6.98. Number of trace IDs per polish development, linkage & responsible material category

(extension category 7-9), or on the edge and inner surface (extension category 10-11). This differs significantly from almost all other hafting polishes. All observed resin polishes were interpretable with a high degree of certainty. All evidence thus confirms the significant influence of resin on the formation of hafting polish, irrespective of the hafting arrangement used, on the condition that resin is used as a true intermediate and not as an additional element. No traces of friction with intruding particles of the material worked (bone) were noted. This confirms the necessity of a male split arrangement for allowing such an intrusion. Scarring For scarring, data are clearer than before thanks to a different retouch distribution. There is a clear reduction in the number of damaged tool parts as soon as resin is used (Fig. 6.99). However, the juxtaposed resin-hafted tools are also more intensely retouched, which may account for the reduction. The pattern for male arrangements is obvious: retouch was only absent on the hafted parts of the resinhafted tools, but still less scarring formed. The pattern would have been even more obvious if no scars had formed during de-hafting (see chapter 3). Resin does not appear to Scarring location

no resin resin no resin juxtaposed juxtaposed male

resin male

total nr % total nr % total nr % total nr %

Butt

0

0

0

0

1

4

0

0

DMedge

4

24

2

40

6

23

3

15

DMridge

0

0

0

0

2

8

0

0

DPbutt

1

6

0

0

1

4

1

5 25

DPedge

4

24

0

0

5

19

5

DPridge

0

0

0

0

1

4

1

5

VMedge

3

18

1

20

4

15

4

20

VPbutt

1

6

0

0

0

0

1

5

VPedge

4

24

2

40

6

23

5

25

Total number

17

5

26

Figure 6.99. Number of tool parts per polish location

20

influence the distribution of tool parts over the scar intensity categories. There are no significant differences on the level of scar morphology (Fig. 6.100), although trapezoidal scars are slightly more frequent in the case of resin use, and this happens at the expense of scalar scars on male hafted tools. Sliced scars are absent on juxtaposed resin-hafted tools, which potentially implies that resin counteracts the binding impact. The presence of crushing on that same tool corresponds to that in the previous toolset, but again it relates to one tool part only. Its occurrence on non-resin male hafted tools too should not be used as evidence against a potential link between crushing and hafting, given the importance of crushing in male arrangements (see supra). For the morphological detail, none of the above trends are confirmed. Narrow scar initiations are absent on resin-hafted tools, but, given their low frequency on the other tools as well (2 recordings only), this evidence does not appear significant. no resin resin no resin resin Scar juxtaposed juxtaposed male male morphology total nr % total nr % total nr % total nr % scalar

15

52

5

56

22

42

14

35

trapezoidal

7

24

3

33

8

15

10

25

triangular

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

3

rectangular

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

irregular

1

3

0

0

8

15

6

15

sliced

6

21

0

0

4

8

3

8

nibbling

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

5

crushing

0

0

1

11

8

15

4

10

Total number

29

9

52

40

Figure 6.100. Number recorded per scar morphology category

For scar termination, the observed tendencies are partially confirmed (Fig. 6.101). There is an increase in hinge-terminating scars on resin-hafted tools, but no snap terminations were recorded.

166

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

no resin resin no resin resin Scar juxtaposed juxtaposed male male termination total nr % total nr % total nr % total nr % feather

14

48

4

50

23

46

17

38

hinge

0

0

2

25

1

2

9

20

step

9

31

2

25

19

38

15

33

vertical

6

21

0

0

0

0

1

2

superposition

0

0

0

0

7

14

3

7

Total number

29

8

50

45

Figure 6.101. Number recorded per scar termination category

For scar size, there are again fewer very large scars on resinhafted tools (1 tool part) than on other tools (8 tool parts). There are no differences in scar depth, definition and intrusiveness, or in scar distribution, but the suggested potentially distinctive nature of run-together scars in an alternating pattern for resin-hafted tools can be contradicted. Such scars are rare on this toolset and occur on non-resin-hafted tools only. The last two attributes, pattern and interpretability, did not provide distinctive criteria either. Bright spots The identified trends are confirmed. On resin-hafted tools, male ones in particular, there is a high frequency of resin friction bright spots. Their frequent occurrence on malehafted tools is a consequence of the force needed to pull the stone tool out of its haft as soon as the resin is fractured (e.g., by striking the haft against a hard surface31); a high degree of friction is thus expectable. Other types of bright spots were not observed on these tools. On the juxtaposed resin-hafted tools no resin friction bright spots were observed. This is a consequence of the lack of a direct contact between stone tool and resin (apart from in one tool part, see supra). The one identified bright spot was attributed to flint friction. The bright spot evidence is thus conclusive. Striations Striations are again rare. Nearly all striations on male resin-hafted tools can be attributed to resin friction. Some of these were definitely formed during extraction from the haft, as with bright spots. Rounding No rounding was formed. 6.5.3.3 Conclusion The impact of resin on the formation of hafting traces functions independently of the haft type used, but a direct contact with resin is required for a visible impact. The most significant impact concerns polish, but bright spots and striations also exhibit characteristic features. Scarring is 31

The resin could be only partially softened by heating, given the difficulty of heating the inside of a male haft. The most appropriate way to soften resin in a male haft appears to be insertion in the hot ashes of a fire.

less distinctive, but there is a reduction in the number of damaged tool parts. 6.5.4 Conclusion: proposal of distinctive criteria Based on the data presented, a number of distinctive criteria can be proposed to allow the identification of resin when it is used as an intermediate in combination with a hafting arrangement (Fig. 6.102). Trace attribute POLISH nr of polished tool parts polish attribution polish extension SCARRING nr of damaged tool parts scar morphology scar termination scar size BRIGHT SPOTS bright spot attribution bright spot cause STRIATIONS striation attribution striation cause

Resin use important reduction resin friction polish (other polishes are extremely rare) on surface or on border & inner surface reduction not significant increase in hinge terminations reduction of very large scars resin friction (systematically) extraction from the haft mainly often to resin friction often to extraction from haft

Figure 6.102. Distinctive traits for identifying the use of resin

6.6

DISCUSSION

Data proved convincing concerning the possibilities of identifying the hafting material and hafting arrangement based on macro- and microscopic traces. Such identifications also seem possible on an archaeological level. As a kind of test, the certainty levels of each hafting inference are examined, organised per variable and per approach (i.e., macroscopic, low power and high power). The best way to evaluate the impact of the hafting arrangement on the ease with which interpretations are made is to examine table 8. This table includes a final evaluation of the interpretability of each aspect of the hafting arrangement: tools were treated as if they were archaeological ones and the main supportive argument(s) for each interpretation are included. A comparison between the certainty levels of the different hafting arrangements allows evaluation of the impact of the hafting arrangement and hafting material on the interpretability of hafting traces. All hafted tools are considered. 6.6.1 Macroscopic level On a macroscopic level, the impact on the certainty level of the following five determinations is examined: hand-held or hafted tool use, haft limit, relative hardness of the dorsal/ ventral hafting material, and hafting method.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

6.6.1.1 Hafting Macroscopic inferences on hafted use are possible with a higher degree of certainty on juxtaposed hafted tools (Fig. 6.103), while male split arrangements result in the least distinctive macroscopic wear. juxtaposed hafting Interpretability nr of % tools uncertain 12 17 low certainty 8 11 moderate certainty 7 10 high certainty 9 13 certain 36 50 Total nr tools 72

male hafting nr of % tools 19 28 11 16 6 9 5 7 26 39 67

male split hafting nr of % tools 11 23 7 15 11 23 8 17 10 21 47

Figure 6.103. Number of tools per haft type

The main evidence on which the determination relies is the occurrence of distinct scarring, next to the abrupt termination of use-wear traces, the occurrence of a tang (i.e., for low certainty interpretations), or a combination of factors. Direct contacts prove to permit more certain interpretations. A highly certain interpretation in the case of an indirect hafting is generally based on a distinctive macroscopic gloss from resin friction or an abrupt termination of usewear traces. The certainty of the interpretation is greater for haft materials made out of wood, bone or antler. Leather bindings can rarely be identified on a macroscopic level, except when a clear use-wear limit is present. A “true” handle allows more friction, and thus also more certain interpretations (most frequently based on the occurrence of distinct scarring). This explains the decrease in certain interpretations for male hafted tools as wrappings are classified as male arrangements. The use of wrappings does not really reduce the ability to infer that a tool was used hafted, nor has the binding material a major impact on the interpretation, even though the use of intestines, dried leather, etc. reduces its certainty because of the more limited friction following their shrinkage upon drying. The use of resin does not appear at first sight to have an impact, but highly certain interpretations prove to be based on the occurrence of a distinct gloss (resin friction) or external features like use-wear evidence. The face in contact with the haft has a minor impact only: when both faces are in contact, the certainty level of the macroscopic interpretation reduces as a consequence of the reduction in the contact zone per face, as this depends on the morphology of the hafted part (in the case of a considerable longitudinal convexity, the contact area will be small). Whether the dorsal or ventral face is in contact with the haft does not appear to have a marked influence. Generally, a macroscopic analysis allows a certain interpretation of hafted use in 39% of cases (Fig. 6.104). This is relatively high and a factor of experience, but it definitely supports the potential of the approach. However, no determination is possible in 23% of cases. The haft type and

167

the haft material are important variables in determining whether hafted use can be inferred on a macroscopic level. Interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total nr of tools

Nr of tools 42 26 24 22 72 186

% 23 14 13 12 39

Figure 6.104. Number of tools per interpretability category

6.6.1.2 Haft limit The determination of the haft limit is far more difficult macroscopically. The highest number of certain interpretations concerns juxtaposed hafts, while the haft limit on male split hafted tools is less marked (Fig. 6.105). In a male split haft, most pressure is absorbed by the haft itself and less pressure is exerted on the stone tool’s edges, except when the tool protrudes from its haft. The great certainty of haft limit interpretations for juxtaposed hafts is partly due to most earth adzing tools being hafted in this way (i.e., earth adzing leads to a pronounced use-wear limit). The lower number of certain interpretations for male hafted tools is a consequence of the inclusion of the wrapped tools in this category: certain interpretations for wrapped tools were hardly ever possible. The main arguments on which a haft limit determination relies is the occurrence of distinct scarring, next to the abrupt termination of use-wear traces. juxtaposed male male split hafting hafting hafting total nr % total nr % total nr % uncertain 22 33 25 31 49 53 low certainty 5 4 7 7 6 15 moderate certainty 6 6 5 8 9 11 high certainty 9 6 4 13 9 9 certain 30 18 6 42 27 13 Total nr of tools 72 67 47 Haft limit

Figure 6.105. Number of tools per haft type

When the contact is indirect, the number of certain interpretations decreases, which implies that the use of a wrapping also decreases the number of certain interpretations. For the binding material it is again clear that bindings which are applied wet and shrink upon drying cause a reduction in the certainty level of the interpretation. The fi xation has no major impact. The impact of the face in contact with the haft is identical to that described for hafting: when both faces are in contact with the haft, the certainty level decreases. Consequently, the certainty with which the haft limit can be identified on a macroscopic level is lower in comparison to the interpretation of hafted use: 29% in contrast to 39% (Fig. 6.106). The number of cases in which no interpretation

168

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

could be provided increased significantly: 43% in contrast to 23%. Interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total nr of tools

nr of tools 80 16 17 19 54 186

% 43 9 9 10 29

Figure 6.106. Number of tools per interpretability category

6.6.1.3 Hafting material The certainty with which one can determine the relative hardness of the hafting material is more difficult to examine. A division is made between the dorsal and ventral hafting material and attention should be paid to the exact material which is in contact with the face in question (i.e., haft or bindings). Interpretations of the dorsal relative hafting material prove to be extremely difficult on a macroscopic level: 94% of the interpretations are uncertain. When at least the dorsal face is in contact with the haft, a few interpretations are possible, mainly as far as concerns contact materials out of wood or antler. The pattern is inverted for the ventral relative hafting material: a dorsal haft contact merely does not allow certain interpretations. Interpretations made with some certainty again concern contact materials made out of wood or antler. Consequently, macroscopic analysis does not really allow a determination of the relative hafting material. 6.6.1.4 Hafting arrangement Interpretability rates are poor: the hafting method of 88% of the tools cannot be interpreted, while certain interpretations were not possible (Fig. 6.107). Male arrangements allow most inferences, particularly when there is direct contact with a hard material (bone or antler). It is clear that the hafting method cannot be reliably inferred on the basis of a macroscopic analysis.

Hafting method uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tools

juxtaposed hafting total nr 66

male hafting

Total male split number of hafting tools total total % % nr nr 44 94 163 88

92

total nr 53

79

5

7

2

3

3

6

10

5

1

1

11

16

0

0

12

6

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

72

%

67

%

47

186

Figure 6.107. Number of tools per hafting arrangement category

6.6.2 Low Power level Given the interpretative potential of low power studies, more categories are examined, such as for instance the relative material hardness (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). In addition, the evaluation is more detailed on the level of the hafting arrangement itself. 6.6.2.1 Hafting Compared to macroscopic data, there is an increase in the certainty with which hafted tools can be distinguished (Fig. 6.108): uncertain interpretations are almost completely absent and most interpretations are certain. In view of future archaeological inferences, low power analysis seems appropriate for identifying hafted tools. The interpretability tends to be the highest for juxtaposed hafted tools.32 juxtaposed male male split hafting hafting hafting total nr % total nr % total nr % uncertain 0 0 1 0 0 2 low certainty 4 10 3 5 15 6 moderate certainty 4 5 3 5 8 6 high certainty 7 5 11 10 8 23 certain 58 46 29 79 70 62 Total number 73 66 47 Hafting

Figure 6.108. Number of tools per haft type category32

Direct contact is generally better interpretable than indirect contact, but differences are small. Wrapped tools can be interpreted with a higher degree of certainty than macroscopically, but the certainty level remains lower than for tools attached to a handle. The most important argument is the scarring evidence, next to other traces like gloss and the abrupt termination of use-wear traces. When resin is used for fixation, (resin friction) gloss is a frequently used argument to determine hafting. Again, interpretations are more certain when only one face is in contact with the haft instead of both faces (Fig. 6.109). Low power analysis allows a certain interpretation of hafting in 72% of cases (Fig. 6.110). 6.6.2.2 Haft limit For the haft limit, there is a similar increase in certainty level: 61% of the tools allow a certain interpretation of the haft limit (Fig. 6.111), in contrast to 29% on a macroscopic level. The percentage nevertheless remains lower than for the interpretation of hafting. Again, juxtaposed arrangements allow the highest number of certain interpretations, male split arrangements the lowest, given the differences in pressure absorption by the haft (see supra). The main argument for determining the location of the haft limit is again the scarring evidence. As with other examples, a haft limit is more difficult to determine for wrapped tools in contrast 32

The number of tools does not correspond to fig. 6.103: there is one more juxtaposed hafted tool and one less male hafted one: one male hafted tool was omitted from the low power analysis (exp. 2/20) and the extra juxtaposed hafted tool is one for which the macroscopic evaluation is missing (exp. 10).

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

HAFTING Interpretability

both total nr 1 7 6 6 2 12 4 62 12 112

Haft material

uncertain

handle handle low certainty wrapping handle moderate certainty wrapping handle high certainty wrapping handle certain wrapping Total number of tools

% 1 6 5 5 2 11 4 55 11

Haft contact dorsal total nr 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 19

% 0 5 0 0 0 16 0 79 0

ventral total nr 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 44 0 55

169

Total number of tools % 0 5 0 7 0 7 0 80 0

1 17 12 23 133 186

Figure 6.109. Number of tools per haft category and haft contact (wrapped tools are separated from those attached to a “real” handle)

Hafting interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total nr of tools

Nr of tools 1 17 12 23 133 186

% 1 9 6 12 72

to tools attached to a handle, and for tools with both faces in contact with the haft in contrast to those with a single contact face. .

Figure 6.110. Number of tools per interpretability category

Haft limit interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total nr of tools

male Total split number hafting of tools total total total % % % % nr nr nr 10 7 11 10 21 24 13 7 11 3 3 6 12 6

juxtaposed male hafting hafting total nr 7 2 7

10

6

9

5

11

18

10

4 53

5 73

4 42

6 64

10 19

21 18 40 114

10 61

47

186

73

66

6.6.2.3 Hafting material Interpretation of the hafting material proves far more difficult (Fig. 6.112). For the majority of tools, low power analysis is insufficient for a reliable interpretation, even on a relative scale. Male arrangements have the highest number of tools in the two extreme categories: no interpretation possible and a firm interpretation of the relative hafting material. The interpretation hardly ever surpasses the relative hardness level. While only the dorsal hafting material is considered in fig. 6.112, it is exemplary for both faces. The number of uncertain interpretations of the relative hafting material for the ventral face decreased (90 instead of 97), but the number of certain interpretations remained the same (24). For wrapped tools, practically no interpretations are possible. While these results significantly improved in comparison to a macroscopic analysis, identifying the hafting material remains a difficult issue.

Figure 6.111. Number of tools per haft type category

Interpretability of Interpretability juxtaposed hafting male hafting dorsal hafting material of dorsal hafting nr of tools % % - relative hardness material - exact nr of tools uncertain uncertain 36 42 49 64 low certainty uncertain 12 1 16 2 uncertain 11 2 15 3 moderate certainty low certainty 2 1 3 2 uncertain 2 4 3 6 high certainty low certainty 2 1 3 2 moderate certainty 3 0 4 0 uncertain 0 9 0 14 low certainty 3 4 4 6 certain moderate certainty 2 2 3 3 high certainty 0 0 0 0 Total number of tools 73 66 Figure 6.112. Number of tools per haft type category

male split hafting Total number of tools nr of tools

%

nr of tools

%

19 12 6 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 47

40 26 13 4 0 2 6 2 0 4 2

97 25 19 5 6 4 6 10 7 6 1 186

52 13 10 3 3 2 3 5 4 3 1

170

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Haft type interpretability

handle versus wrapping

handle wrapping handle low certainty wrapping handle moderate certainty wrapping handle high certainty wrapping handle certain wrapping Total number of tools uncertain

juxtaposed hafting nr of tools % 29 40 21

29

14

19

6

8

3

4

73

male hafting nr of tools % 8 12 15 23 14 21 5 8 6 9 1 2 5 8 1 2 9 14 2 3 66

male split hafting nr of tools % 24 51 13

28

1

2

8

17

1

2

47

Total nr of tools nr of tools % 33 61 8 15 26 48 3 5 11 21 1 1 10 19 1 1 7 13 1 2 186

Figure 6.113. Number of tools per hafting arrangement

Hafting intepretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tools

juxtaposed hafting nr of tools % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 100 75

male hafting nr of tools % 0 0 3 5 2 3 2 3 59 89 66

male split hafting nr of tools % 0 0 1 2 2 4 0 0 44 94 47

Total number of tools nr of tools % 0 0 4 2 4 2 2 1 178 95 188

Figure 6.114. Number of tools per haft type33

6.6.2.4 Hafting arrangement Interpretation of the haft type is more straightforward (Fig. 6.113): in the majority of cases an interpretation can be provided, in 31% of cases with moderate certainty. Male arrangements with a handle in particular prove to be easily interpretable. For a distinction between a direct and an indirect hafting, no interpretation is possible in only 30% of cases. 6.6.3 High Power level The conclusive table (table 8) includes the same categories as for the low power level, but interpretations of the exact hafting material are now expected (Keeley 1980).33 6.6.3.1 Hafting In comparison to lower magnification interpretations, there is a considerable increase in the number of certain interpretations (Fig. 6.114), from 72% for a low power analysis up to 95% for a high power analysis. All tools were interpretable with at least some degree of certainty, and even all tools hafted in juxtaposed arrangements could be interpreted with certainty. The lower percentage for male hafted tools is again due to the wrapped tools, but also concerns other tools with both faces in contact with the haft. Arguments in the main no longer consist of scarring evidence; polish or a combination of more traces, like polish, scarring and bright spots proves more important.

33

Two more tools are included in these tables, exp. 10/22 and 10/26.

6.6.3.2 Haft limit Certain interpretations are not as predominant for the haft limit (Fig. 6.115). A certain interpretation was judged possible in 73% of cases, which is an increase with regard to the low power analysis (61%). As was observed earlier, juxtaposed arrangements allow interpretations with the highest level of certainty and no uncertain interpretations occur. The lowest certainty levels again occur for male split hafted tools, while the wrapped tools (male hafting) show a large number of certain interpretations. The arguments for haft limit determinations rarely consist of polish alone; most frequently several traces, including scarring, are combined.

6.6.3.3 Hafting material There is a considerable increase in the number of certain interpretations of the relative hafting material: 53% (Fig. 6.116). However, only 23% of the interpretations were categorised as certain as far as exact hafting material was concerned compared to 13% of low power interpretations of the relative material hardness – taking into account the aspirations of the method. Nevertheless, a high power analysis clearly allows more reliable interpretations of the hafting material. The results for the ventral hafting material hardly differ. If results are compared between hafting arrangements, the best scores are obtained for juxtaposed arrangements, while male hafted tools scored higher on a low power level.

HAFTING TRACES – DOMINANT VARIABLES II

Haft limit interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tools

juxtaposed hafting nr of tools % 0 0 3 4 4 5 9 12 59 79 75

male hafting nr of tools % 1 2 3 5 5 8 10 15 47 71 66

male split hafting nr of tools % 3 6 3 6 2 4 7 15 32 68 47

171

Total number of tools nr of tools % 4 2 9 5 11 6 26 14 138 73 188

Figure 6.115. Number of tools per haft type

Interpretability of Interpretability juxtaposed hafting male hafting dorsal hafting material of dorsal hafting nr of tools % % - relative hardness material - exact nr of tools uncertain uncertain 0 11 0 17 uncertain 2 3 3 5 low certainty low certainty 2 1 3 2 uncertain 0 1 0 2 moderate certainty low certainty 4 3 5 5 moderate certainty 1 2 1 3 low certainty 1 1 1 2 moderate certainty 9 5 high certainty 12 8 high certainty 7 1 9 2 uncertain 0 2 0 3 low certainty 0 0 0 0 certain moderate certainty 11 1 15 2 high certainty 20 10 27 15 certain 18 14 24 21 Total number of tools 75 66

male split hafting Total number of tools nr of tools

%

nr of tools

%

6 4 0 0 3 0 3 4 1 0 0 2 12 12 47

13 9 0 0 6 0 6 9 2 0 0 4 26 26

17 9 3 1 10 3 5 18 9 2 0 14 42 44 188

9 5 2 1 5 2 3 10 5 1 0 7 22 23

Figure 6.116. Number of tools per haft type

Haft material interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tools

juxtaposed hafting nr of tools % 5 7 6 8 19 25 14 19 31 41 75

male hafting nr of tools % 29 44 6 9 7 11 11 17 13 20 66

male split hafting nr of tools % 10 21 3 6 7 15 9 19 18 38 47

Total number of tools nr of tools % 44 23 15 8 33 17 34 18 65 34 191

Figure 6.117. Number of tools per haft type

When the haft material alone is examined (independently of the contact face), a higher percentage of certain interpretations can be provided in comparison to all hafting materials together: 31% instead of 23% (Fig. 6.117 and 6.116 respectively). The nature of bindings is thus often more difficult to interpret than the haft material. The juxtaposed arrangements again allow the highest percentage of certain interpretations. Consequently, a high power analysis permits the interpretation of the relative hardness of the hafting material in the majority of cases, while an interpretation of the exact hafting material is more difficult.

6.6.3.4 Hafting arrangement There is again a considerable increase in the number of certain interpretations: 39% instead of 8% on a low power level (Fig. 6.118). Uncertain interpretations are rare. A high power analysis proves to be very suitable for inferring the haft type. The largest number of certain interpretations relates to juxtaposed arrangements, while the score for male arrangements is negatively influenced by the wrappings. For the distinction between direct and indirect contact, there is an increase in the number of certain interpretations: 57% of the tools can be interpreted with certainty; only 6% proved uninterpretable. The hafting arrangement thus influences the certainty level of the interpretation. Overall, the scores of a high power analysis are good.

172

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Haft type interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total number of tools

juxtaposed hafting nr of tools % 1 1 4 5 14 19 17 23 39 52 75

male hafting nr of tools % 3 5 5 8 18 27 17 26 23 35 66

male split hafting nr of tools % 6 13 8 17 6 13 16 34 11 23 47

Total number of tools nr of tools % 10 5 17 9 38 20 50 27 73 39 188

Figure 6.118. Number of tools per haft type

6.6.4 Conclusion The hafting arrangement proves to influence the certainty level of hafting interpretations irrespective of the analytical level. The impact of the hafting material is far more limited. Whether the haft is fabricated out of wood or antler has no impact, but the use of leather bindings alone (i.e., wrapping) reduces the interpretability considerably. The data provide some indication of what can be expected on an archaeological level. Thanks to the importance of trace patterns for hafting inferences, many interpretations are already possible macroscopically. A macroscopic analysis proves suitable for the primary isolation of potentially hafted tools within an assemblage, but further inferences are not well founded. A low power analysis allows interpretations based on hafted use, the haft limit, and the hafting arrangement, but the hafting material remains difficult to infer. A high power analysis allows the most certain interpretations. In spite of the considerable investment in time, the high scores demonstrate that this kind of analysis may be fruitful. The method opted for should thus depend on the question in mind. The most powerful method combines the three approaches, as the deficiencies of one method are compensated for by another method and vice versa.

6.7

CONCLUSION

Both the hafting material and the hafting arrangement proved to have a considerable impact on the formation of hafting traces. While the impact of the hafting material is mainly situated on a morphological level, the hafting arrangement determines the kind of traces formed and the distribution of the traces over the hafted part (dorsal versus ventral face). Distinctive criteria could be proposed which allow the interpretation of both the hafting material and the hafting arrangement, also on an archaeological level. The former kind of interpretations proved more difficult than the latter, as was confirmed by the evaluation of the certainty levels of the interpretations. In addition, the hafting material and hafting arrangement proved to have a distinctive impact on the certainty level obtained. They are thus correctly classified as dominant variables. Their impact – in particular that of the hafting arrangement – has been shown to be more important than the impact identified for use motion and material worked (see chapter 5).

7. HAFTING TRACES – SECONDARY VARIABLES

Secondary variables do not determine the formation of hafting traces; they merely cause slight variations on an existing pattern. Knowledge of their impact is nevertheless important but it will not fundamentally change interpretations, or influence their certainty level. Six secondary variables are dealt with: raw material coarseness, tool morphology, retouch, use duration, tool protrusion from the haft, and the experimenter. The impact of each of these variables differs and is dealt with individually. The procedure is identical to that in the previous chapters: each trace type is dealt with separately, and for the discussion of trace attributes the sequence of attributes as set out in annex I is followed.

ID

HT HM TP TD AP

7.1

RAW MATERIAL COARSENESS

Based on use-wear traces, the coarseness of the raw material (i.e., flint) is assumed to influence hafting trace development. Analysts have frequently noted the slower development of use polish on coarser raw materials. Here only the influence of flint coarseness is examined. Most of the experimental tools dealt with earlier were fabricated out of fine-grained flint, so attention is mainly devoted to the impact of a coarser grain. Several sets of two tools are selected (Fig. 7.1), including one coarse-grained flint tool and its most representative (in terms of function, use duration, etc.) fine-grained counterpart. Twenty-six tools are included in total, with differing

Haft Haft Wrapping Bindings Fixation material contact

Activity

H:min: Material Grain Tooltype sec worked size

Exp. 4/1

J

D LD Tr Pe

wood

0

leather

0

ventral

adzing

0:37:00

earth

flake-adze coarse

Exp. 4/2

J

D LD Tr Pe

wood

0

leather

0

ventral

adzing

0:30:00

earth

flake-adze

fine

Exp. 22/6

J

D

T

A Pa

wood

0

intestines

resin

ventral

drilling

0:30:00 fresh bone

drillbit

coarse

Exp. 22/7 MS D

T

A Pa

wood

0

leather + wet

0

both

drilling

0:40:00 fresh bone

drillbit

coarse

Exp. 22/8 MS D

T

A Pa

wood

0

intestines

0

both

drilling

0:15:00 fresh bone

drillbit

coarse

Exp. 22/5

D

T

A Pa

wood

0

tendons

resin

ventral

drilling

0:25:00 fresh bone

drillbit

fine

Exp. 14/2 MS D

T

A Pa

wood

0

leather

0

both

drilling

0:39:00

schist

borer

fine

Exp. 14/7 MS D

T

A Pa

wood

0

leather

0

both

drilling

0:18:00

antler

borer

fine

Exp. 16/21 M

D

T

A Pe lime tree

0

lime tree

0

both

grooving 1:10:00

schist

scraper

coarse

Exp. 22/36

D LD Tr Pa

antler

0

leather

0

ventral

grooving 1:00:00 dry wood

burin

coarse

wood

0

intestines

0

both

grooving 1:00:00 dry wood

burin

coarse

burin

coarse

J

J

Exp. 22/44 MS D

T

A Pa

Exp. 22/51 MS

I

T

A Pa

Exp. 25/3

M

D

T

A Pe lime tree

Exp. 22/35

J

D LD Tr Pa

Exp. 22/43 MS D

T

A Pa

antler

0

0

resin

both

grooving 1:00:00

fresh wood

0

lime tree

0

both

grooving 0:23:00 fresh bone

burin

fine

antler

0

leather

0

ventral

grooving 1:00:00 dry wood

burin

fine

wood

0

leather

0

both

grooving 1:00:00 dry wood

burin

fine

burin

fine

Exp. 22/52 MS

I

T

A Pa

antler

Exp. 22/18 MS

I

T

A Pa

wood

Exp. 22/27 M

I

T

A Pa

leather

0

grooving 1:00:00

fresh wood

0

resin

both

0

0

resin

both

perforating 0:50:00 fresh bone perforator coarse

leather

leather

0

both

perforating 0:40:00 fresh bone perforator coarse

Exp. 22/28 M

I

T

A Pa

leather

leather

leather

0

both

perforating 0:30:00 fresh bone perforator coarse

Exp. 22/17 MS

I

T

A Pa

wood

0

0

resin

both

perforating 0:50:00 fresh bone perforator

fine

Exp. 22/26 M

I

T

A Pa

leather

leather

leather

0

both

perforating 0:30:00 fresh bone perforator

fine

Exp. 22/29 M

I

T

A Pa

leather

leather

leather

0

both

perforating 0:40:00 fresh bone perforator

fine

Exp. 16/19 MS D

T

A Pe

wood

0

wet leather

0

both

scraping

1:00:00

Exp. 20/5 MS D

T

A Pe

wood

0

leather

0

both

scraping

0:25:43 fresh hide

Exp. 16/10 MS D

T

A Pa

wood

0

leather

0

both

scraping

1:00:00

Exp. 20/1 MS D

T

A Pe

wood

0

leather

0

both

scraping

0:36:47 fresh hide

Figure 7.1. Experimental details (based on table 1.1)

tanned hide dry hide

scraper

coarse

scraper

coarse

scraper

fine

scraper

fine

174

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

tool uses. A first idea concerning the effect of flint coarseness may be obtained on the basis of pieces which vary in coarseness due to coarse inclusions within a fine-grained whole. Exp. 22/33 is an example: the finer-grained zones are situated in the distal zone up to and round the haft limit and in the most proximal zone. The ventral haft polish (wood) proves to be distinctly better developed in the fine-grained zones, and it is largely absent in the coarse-grained zones in spite of closer haft contact in some areas. The raw material coarseness indeed appears to influence polish development, but not the other trace types. Cortex is generally rare. Only five tools show minor remnants of cortex (exp. 4/2, 14/2, 16/10, 20/1 and 22/27) (Tables 3). Coarse inclusions occur in two of the finegrained tools (exp. 4/2 and 22/35). Retouch presence and coarseness differ to some extent between the tools and will have to be taken into account where relevant. Fractures occur only at the proximal end due to knapping and at the distal extremity during use. They do not influence the hafting traces.

the tool pairs, but it did not really disturb potential patterning. There is however clearly more gloss formation on finegrained tools than on coarse-grained tools, irrespective of the tool’s use or hafting arrangement (Fig. 7.2). 7.1.2

7.1.2.1 Polish There is no impact from the coarseness of the raw material on the general polish development (Fig. 7.3). While there are some differences between the tool pairs, these are not systematic and polish development does not appear to be distinctly poorer on coarser grained flints. The number of polished tool parts does not differ: finegrained tools show only two more polished tool parts in total (127 instead of 125), which is an insignificant difference, particularly since one of these tool parts exhibits a bulbar polish and bulbs are more frequently absent on coarse-grained tools. There are no differences in polish development and linkage, but the polish on coarse-grained tools is more frequently distributed in spots than in a discontinuous or continuous fashion. This is due to the more irregular microtopography of coarser grained materials. The extent of the polish differs slightly: on the surface there is less polish (category “7”, see annex I) on coarser-grain

DPedge

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

fine

DPridge

coarse

Exp. ID

DPbutt

7.1.1 Macroscopic analysis There are few differences in scarring (Table 4.1): it is slightly more reduced on coarse-grained tools, but the difference is unconvincing. Retouch differs between some of

Coarseness

Microscopic analysis

clear limit

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 22/6 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 16/21 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/18 Exp. 22/27 Exp. 22/28 Exp. 16/19 Exp. 20/5 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 22/5 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 25/3 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/17 Exp. 22/26 Exp. 22/29 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 20/1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 401 401

8 0 402 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 402 8 402 0 401 402 0 0 2 0 402 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401 0 0 401 402 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 401 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401 402 0 401 401 0 0 2 0 0 401

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 7.2. Macroscopic gloss intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1=low to 4=extensive)

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

fine

DPedge

coarse

Exp. ID

DPridge

Coarseness

175

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – SECONDARY VARIABLES

clear limit

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 22/6 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 16/21 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/18 Exp. 22/27 Exp. 22/28 Exp. 16/19 Exp. 20/5 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 22/5 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 25/3 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/17 Exp. 22/26 Exp. 22/29 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 20/1

401 0 402 0 401 401 402 0 0 0 0 401 9 401 0 401 401 401 401 0 0 0 711 0 0 401

401 402 401 401 402 402 403 401 0 402 402 403 401 401 401 401 401 401 403 401 401 423 401 401 402 401

401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 401 401 421 711 401 401 401

401 401 0 401 401 401 402 0 0 401 401 402 401 401 402 401 402 401 401 401 0 0 401 401 401 401

401 403 401 402 402 402 402 0 221 401 401 403 401 401 401 401 0 401 402 402 401 422 401 401 402 401

401 402 401 401 401 401 401 0 0 401 401 401 401 401 0 0 401 401 402 401 0 421 712 0 401 402

401 402 0 401 0 0 402 401 0 401 0 402 402 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 0 711 401 401 401

401 401 201 201 402 0 403 401 0 401 0 401 0 401 0 401 0 201 401 0 0 0 712 0 403 401

8 8 402 402 401 401 8 8 0 0 402 8 402 8 403 8 401 0 402 403 402 0 711 401 403 8

401 401 402 401 401 0 401 0 401 402 401 402 401 401 401 401 401 401 402 402 401 0 712 0 401 0

401 402 0 0 401 0 402 401 0 401 401 402 402 401 401 401 0 401 401 401 0 0 402 401 401 401

401 401 401 401 401 0 401 0 0 401 401 402 401 401 0 401 401 402 402 401 401 0 711 401 402 401

401 403 401 401 401 0 401 0 0 401 401 402 0 402 403 401 401 0 402 401 0 0 712 0 401 401

401 8 201 0 9 201 401 8 0 9 0 401 9 8 401 401 401 0 401 0 401 0 711 401 9 9

dorsal both both both both dorsal both 0 0 both both both dorsal dorsal both both 0 both both both both both 0 both both both

Figure 7.3. Polish intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1=low to 4=extensive)

materials than on finer-grained ones (category “8”, see annex I). Polish interpretability does not differ. Consequently, the influence of grain size on polish formation is limited and mainly concerns polish distribution and extent. This is not expected to hamper hafting inferences on coarser-grained flint tools. 7.1.2.2 Scarring Coarse-grained flint tools tend to be less damaged (Fig. 7.4), but this is generally due to more intense retouch. Differences induced by the raw material itself are thus limited and do not prevent inferences on hafting. When two tools are retouched in exactly the same zones and with the same coarseness, the scarring on the coarser one may appear more difficult to interpret (e.g., exp. 4/1 and 4/2). However, there are also examples in which a tool pair was retouched in an identical way, the coarse-grained tool showing more scarring than the fine-grained one (e.g., exp. 20/5 and 20/1). When they are examined in more detail, there proves to be a distinct difference in the number of damaged tool parts (Fig. 7.5): fine-grained tools were significantly more damaged than coarse-grained ones, but there is no difference in the distribution of scarring over the different tool parts.

However, differences in the presence and coarseness of retouch need to be taken into account: coarse-grained tools show 9 unretouched dorsal tool parts, while fine-grained tools show 26.34 This is a difference of 17 tool parts, which nicely covers the difference in the total number of damaged tool parts, if one knows that unretouched edges are damaged more easily than retouched ones. All differences thus appear to be due to differences in the presence of retouch. For the relative scarring intensity per damaged tool part, scarring on fine-grained tools tends to be slightly more intense than on coarse-grained tools. This finds confirmation on a morphological level in slightly greater crushing on fine-grained tools. As far as scar termination is concerned, scars on coarse-grained tools tend to be more abrupt, no vertical terminations are observed, but superposing scars appear to be less visible (Fig. 7.6).

34

For scarring, the left and right edges are counted separately (see chapter 2), so each tool can have four unretouched dorsal tool parts: dorsal medial left and right edges, and proximal left and right edges.

DMedge

VPbutt

VPedge

VMedge

BUTT

fine

DMridge

coarse

Exp. ID

DPedge

Coarseness

DPridge

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

DPbutt

176

clear limit

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 22/6 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 16/21 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/18 Exp. 22/27 Exp. 22/28 Exp. 16/19 Exp. 20/5 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 22/5 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 25/3 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/17 Exp. 22/26 Exp. 22/29 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 20/1

2 401 202 203 0 203 321 0 202 202 0 0 9 403 203 0 203 202 202 202 401 0 203 0 203 202

1 0 0 0 0 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 401 0 0 223 0 0 202 402 401 402 402 403 0 402 202 402 221 0 0 402 712 402 211 1

1 0 0 0 0 223 401 0 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 403 0 401 223 0 0 202 401 401 401 402 403 401 402 0 402 401 0 402 401 712 401 401 1

401 401 0 0 0 0 233 0 0 0 0 401 201 403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 712 0 0 401

1 0 402 401 401 212 0 0 202 401 401 401 1 402 0 401 402 402 401 401 401 401 402 402 401 0

1 0 402 0 401 0 401 0 202 0 401 1 212 403 0 401 401 403 211 0 402 0 712 401 403 0

402 8 201 201 9 201 322 8 0 0 0 0 403 8 202 402 201 202 0 203 401 201 712 0 401 9

0 0 both 0 both 0 both 0 0 dorsal both ventral 0 0 0 both 0 both dorsal 0 both both 0 both both 0

Figure 7.4. Scarring intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1=low to 4=extensive)

Scar location Butt DMedge DMridge DPbutt DPedge DPridge VMedge VPbutt VPedge Total number

coarse-grained total nr % 2 7 7 25 1 4 0 0 6 21 1 4 3 11 2 7 5 18 28

fine-grained total nr % 2 5 10 23 0 0 2 5 8 19 1 2 7 16 2 5 11 26 43

Scar termination feather hinge step vertical superposition Total number

coarse-grained total nr % 12 26 9 20 21 46 0 0 4 9 46

fine-grained total nr % 28 37 9 12 19 25 5 7 14 19 75

Figure 7.6. Number recorded per scar termination category

Figure 7.5. Number of damaged tool parts per location

7.1.2.3 Bright spots There is a tendency to a more limited amount and development of bright spots on coarser-grained flint (Fig. 7.7), as expected. Differences are small and do not hamper the interpretability of hafting traces.

As regards scar distribution, bifacial scarring is absent on coarse-grained tools, but this is due to retouch: the only tool on which bifacial scars occur is exp. 22/52 the hafted part of which remained unretouched. There are no other differences in the descriptive scar attributes, but there is a trend towards better interpretable scars on fine-grained tools due to their higher visibility.

7.1.2.4 Striations The general tendency is again confirmed: there are fewer striations on coarser-gained flint tools than on fine-grained ones (Table 5.1), but striations are generally of limited importance for hafting inferences.

DPsurf

DMridge

DMedge

DMsurf

VPbutt

VPbulb

VPedge

VPsurf

VMedge

VMsurf

BUTT

fine

DPedge

coarse

Exp. ID

DPridge

Coarseness

177

DPbutt

HAFTING TRACES – SECONDARY VARIABLES

clear limit

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 22/6 Exp. 22/7 Exp. 22/8 Exp. 16/21 Exp. 22/36 Exp. 22/44 Exp. 22/51 Exp. 22/18 Exp. 22/27 Exp. 22/28 Exp. 16/19 Exp. 20/5 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 22/5 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 25/3 Exp. 22/35 Exp. 22/43 Exp. 22/52 Exp. 22/17 Exp. 22/26 Exp. 22/29 Exp. 16/10 Exp. 20/1

401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 401 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 402 0

401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 402 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 401 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 0 0

401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 712 0 403 402

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 712 0 0 402

8 8 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 712 0 404 8

0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 403 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 421 714 0 0 401

0 0 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 401 0 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 711 0 0 401

0 403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 714 0 0 401

0 8 0 0 9 0 0 8 0 9 0 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 9

dorsal ventral 0 ventral 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 both 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dorsal both

Figure 7.7. Bright spot intensity per relevant tool part (on a scale of 1 to 4)

Hafting interpretability coarse-grained uncertain 6 low certainty 3 moderate certainty 1 high certainty 1 certain 1 Total nr of tools 12

fine-grained 4 1 2 1 4 12

Hafting interpretability coarse-grained uncertain 0 low certainty 5 moderate certainty 2 high certainty 2 certain 3 Total nr of tools 12

fine-grained 1 1 0 2 8 12

Figure 7.8. Number of tools per certainty level and grain size35

Figure 7.9. Number of tool per certainty level and grain size

7.1.2.5 Rounding Hafting rounding occurs on one coarse-grained tool only, exp. 16/19, indicating that a coarser grain does not prevent its formation.35

table 8 are examined. On a macroscopic level, the grain size has a clear impact: it proves to be more difficult to determine whether or not a tool was used hafted if the grain is coarse (Fig. 7.8). This also counts for determinations of the haft limit. Even with low power the distinction between hafted and hand-held tools tends to be easier to make on fine-grained tools (Fig. 7.9), as well as the determination of the haft limit. As regards interpretations of the hafting material and hafting method, no marked differences can be noted, but interpretability is generally poor.

7.1.3 Discussion For the adequate evaluation of the impact of grain size on the interpretability of hafting traces, the evaluations of 35

The total tool number is smaller (24 instead of 26) since no data were available for exp. 14/2. For this reason, data for exp. 22/7 had to be excluded as well.

178

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

With high power, there are no longer any marked differences and tools appear to be interpretable with more or less equal certainty. 7.1.4 Extrapolation to other raw materials The results presented can also be used as a starting point for the future extrapolation of the methodology towards other raw materials. After all, differences in flint coarseness are not absolute; there is a continuous scale from fine-grained up to coarse-grained flints. Raw materials such as quartzite may be fitted in relatively easily, while this is somewhat more difficult for other raw materials. The direct transfer of the results to obsidian is difficult: the scarring evidence does not pose problems, but polish characteristics may differ significantly. On the basis of use-wear studies on obsidian (Hurcombe 1992), striations – next to scarring – prove to represent the main trace types. Problems in extrapolation to quartz are a consequence of its coarse grain and its high reflexivity, influencing fracture dynamics and polish visibility/appearance respectively. An extrapolation is however possible (Rots and Van Peer 2006). For a reliable extrapolation of the results to other materials, the general principles laid down in this book can be used, but specific additional experiments have to be undertaken for the raw material in question.

For polish, the transverse cross-section influences both the distribution of concentrations and the amount of its intrusion inward (Fig. 7.10). If more than one ridge is present, their height determines the location of the best-developed polishes (i.e., where contact is closest). In this example the most protruding ridge will show the best-developed polish. In addition, the number of ridges determines the amount of polish intrusion that can occur. When the crosssection is triangular, less intrusion can occur than when a cross-section is trapezoidal, simply because of the lack of contact between the adjacent surface and a hard haft material. The more ridges the more prominent the adjacent surface and the more intrusion occurs. This implies that for a sub-triangular or trapezoidal cross-section polish will be better developed on one side of the ridge (= most horizontal side) than the other. This knowledge is important for hafting inferences. After all, if one wants to determine the exact haft material, one is wise to examine that side of the ridge on which the best-developed polish can be expected. For contact with a soft hafting material these considerations are less important.

7.1.5 Conclusion To conclude, raw material coarseness has a minor influence on the formation of hafting traces: generally, a coarse grain hinders their formation. Polish tends to be distributed more in spots, scars tend to be less intense and more abrupt, bright spots are more restricted in number and development, etc. Although one has to be aware of this impact, it is believed not to hamper adequate hafting inferences. Therefore, raw material coarseness is rightly classified as a secondary variable.

7.2

TOOL MORPHOLOGY

At several instances, the potential impact of tool morphology on the hafting trace pattern has been mentioned (e.g., longitudinal curvature, presence or absence of bulb). Here, the impact of several morphological attributes is characterised in more detail: – transverse cross-section – longitudinal curvature – the butt protrusion – the bulb characteristics: presence/absence, prominence, presence of a bulbar scar or ridges For some of these features, no actual data can be presented as insight relies mainly on experience gained during the microscopic analysis. Some confirmation may nevertheless be found in the comments provided in tables 6. 7.2.1 Transverse cross-section Transverse cross-section determines the contact between the dorsal face and the hafting material, especially when the hafting material is moderately hard to hard, and may mainly influence the formation of polish and scarring.

triangular

trapezoidal

sub-triangular

semi-convex

Figure 7.10. Polish concentration and intrusion per cross-section (vertical arrow = polish concentration; horizontal or oblique arrow = polish intrusion; two arrows = prominent concentration; bold and large arrow = more important concentration / intrusion

For scarring, cross-section in combination with tool thickness determines the spine plane angle.36 On average, the spine plane angle is more obtuse for trapezoidal cross-sections than for triangular ones. Since sharp angles are more susceptible to scarring, scarring is more likely to occur if the cross-section is triangular, provided retouch is absent. The cross-section also determines whether a tool can be easily hafted with its dorsal face against a juxtaposed haft: the dorsal haft contact of a tool with a triangular cross-section will never result in a strong fixation. In addition, the risk of fractures is high because most of the tool is not supported by the haft: only the ridge has close haft contact and the (dorsal) edges are left unprotected against scarring. This is nicely demonstrated by exp. 1/2, a tool with a triangular cross-section, hafted with its dorsal face against a jux-

36

For a definition see chapter 2.

HAFTING TRACES – SECONDARY VARIABLES

179

Figure 7.11. Exp. 1/2: fracture in haft during wood adzing

taposed haft. It fractured in two places after a few minutes of adzing wood. The fracture which occurred in the haft was associated with a considerable amount of scarring (Fig. 7.11). A tool’s cross-section should thus not be overlooked during analysis. 7.2.2 Longitudinal curvature Longitudinal curvature determines the amount of contact between the tool’s faces and the haft, it influences the ease with which a tool is hafted, and it determines the risk of fractures. A considerable curvature results in a more restricted contact surface between tool and haft (see chapter 6), in particular for male split (and male) hafted tools and for moderately hard to hard haft materials. This factor cannot be entirely divorced from the bulb characteristics. If a juxtaposed hafting arrangement with a ventral haft contact is considered, a tool with an almost straight curvature of the hafted part will be in near to complete contact with the haft, except when the bulb is prominent. In the latter case, the zone just distal of the bulb will not make any contact with the haft. A tool with a considerable curvature will result in a concentration of the contact in the most proximal zone and round the haft limit, provided the same arrangement. The principle is the same for a dorsal haft contact. For a male split arrangement, both faces determine the amount of contact between tool and haft. A more or less straight tool gives the largest contact surface, but as soon as the bulb is prominent the ventral contact surface will shrink significantly. After all, the dorsal proximal face is more or less straight in longitudinal section and determines the position of the tool in a male split haft. While the dorsal face will remain in close contact with the haft, the main contact zone on the ventral face will be concentrated on the bulb. As soon as there is a curve in the hafted part, the ventral face will acquire a second contact zone round the haft limit, while the dorsal contact round the haft limit will disappear. The more the hafted part is curved, the more the dorsal contact surface will shrink. For tools with a moder-

ate to pronounced curve, the bulb has less (or no) impact. For male arrangements (excluding wrappings37), the principle is the same as for male split arrangements with this difference: that the edge morphology also determines the nature of the contact. This implies that some tool surfaces may lack practically all contact with the haft. The implication is that the location of the polished zones may provide useful data in support of a particular haft type. Longitudinal curvature has also some impact on scarring, but this is mainly a consequence of lack of support from the haft when the curvature is pronounced. The effect is thus similar to that of the protrusion of a tool from its haft (see infra). It is obvious that tools with a pronounced longitudinal curvature are more difficult to haft than tools which are straight. This explains why bulbs are frequently removed in order to facilitate hafting, as exemplified in ethnographic (see chapter 2) and archaeological conditions; the Magdalenian endscrapers of Verberie are an example of this (Rots 2005). Pronounced longitudinal curvature also increases the risk of fractures, as can be proved by experimental data (Fig. 7.12): 70% of the fractures which occurred in or at the haft limit during hafted use were associated with a tool that showed a pronounced overall curvature. This increases to 83% when tools which showed some curvature in their hafted parts are included. The few fractures that occurred when the tool was nearly straight were associated with highpressure activity: exp. 1/9 and 9/1 (wood adzing), exp. 10/17 and 10/27 (wood chiselling). Longitudinal curvature is thus not a negligible factor when one is examining hafting. 7.2.3 Butt protrusion The impact of butt protrusion on the formation of hafting traces is limited; it mainly determines where poten37

Obviously, the longitudinal curvature does not influence the amount of contact between a tool and a wrapping, given the soft material out of which wrappings are fabricated.

180

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Longitudinal curvature (whole tool)

Longitudinal curvature (hafted part)

curve light curve curve straight twist light curve light curve straight twist light curve twist straight twist straight straight Total number of fractures during hafted use

Fracture at haft limit or in haft total nr % 4 17 11 48 0 0 1 4 3 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 9 23

Figure 7.12. Number of fractures that occurred during hafted use in the haft or at the haft limit per longitudinal curvature category

tial wear will be located and whether crushing can be expected. A butt which is straight in longitudinal crosssection (i.e., vertical) is more resistant to scarring than one which protrudes at the dorsal or ventral side. As regards polish, a straight butt has more chance to show polish all over its face, while a butt which protrudes at one end generally shows polish formation only on the protrusion, if it is not removed by scarring. A butt which protrudes at one end also has more chance to intrude in the haft than a straight one. This implies that it may determine the extent to which a haft is damaged. For instance, a wooden juxtaposed haft with a stopping ridge used in a high-pressure task runs a greater risk of splitting when the tool mounted on it has a protruding butt. This risk increases when the butt protrusion is located in the corner of the stopping ridge (Fig. 7.13).

juxtaposed haft

formation when it is prominent. The occurrence of a scar or ridges (formed during knapping, depending on the knapping mode, see chapter 3) increases the chance of polish concentration in these zones, given their prominent nature. It is clear that one needs to be careful when examining bulbar polish in order to be certain that the polish observed is indeed due to hafting and not technological wear (see chapter 3). Production wear on the bulb is relatively easy to recognise thanks to its stone-on-stone morphology. 7.2.5 Conclusion Tool morphology thus needs to be taken into account when investigating hafting. Here only the impact of a certain morphological aspect was examined, but archaeologically morphological considerations also play a role on another level, such as why one tool or blade/flake was selected over another one, or why a specific fracture may have occurred, etc. If a tool is to be efficient (in a broad sense), morphological considerations are essential.

7.3

RETOUCH

The impact of retouch on the formation of hafting traces has frequently been mentioned in the preceding chapters. Apart from having a negative influence on the formation of scarring (retouch strengthens the edge), it also obliterates potential hafting scarring. Hafting scars – just like usewear scars – are difficult to distinguish on a retouched edge, in particular when retouch is coarse. The so-called “noninterpretable scarring” that was frequently referred to in previous chapters is a consequence of uncertainty regarding the scar’s cause, i.e. hafting or retouch. The effect of retouch on scarring is similar to the effect of obtuse edge (and spine plane) angles, in that it protects against scarring. Retouch does not counteract the formation of polish, but the resulting polish distribution may differ, as polish will be particularly situated along the (protruding) retouch ridges, from where it will only gradually intrude in concavities. It may appear somewhat less developed as the friction is distributed over a larger surface. Given the link between bright spots and scarring, chances of bright spot formation are more reduced on tools with a retouched hafted part.

7.4

USE DURATION

Figure 7.13. Stopping ridge on juxtaposed haft

7.2.4 Bulb characteristics A last factor concerns the bulb characteristics. In table 3.5, several bulbar traits such as the presence of bulbar scars or ridges and its thickness38 are included. As mentioned, the bulb thickness in combination with the longitudinal convexity determines the amount of contact between stone tool and haft. The bulb itself obviously shows more polish

38

The proximal thickness was measured at the centre of the bulb.

It is obvious that use duration has an effect on the formation and interpretability of hafting traces. Use for about 30 minutes was considered to be sufficient for interpretable hafting traces to form (see chapter 3). Here the evaluation of the hafting trace interpretability (cf. table 8) is compared with the relative use duration on all three analytical levels. On a macroscopic level, use duration has no impact (Fig. 7.14) and it does not determine whether a distinction between hafted and hand-held tools is possible. Other factors are more important, such as the kind of tool use: in a violent use motion, a few seconds may be sufficient for characteristic scarring to appear. Nearly all experimental

HAFTING TRACES – SECONDARY VARIABLES

Hafting interpretability uncertain low certainty moderate certainty high certainty certain Total nr of tools

short total nr 0 3 1 0 5 9

% 0 33 11 0 56

Relative use duration moderate high total nr total nr % 8 11 28 3 9 10 5 8 17 3 9 10 10 33 34 29 70

% 16 13 11 13 47

extensive total nr 20 11 10 10 24 75

181

% 27 15 13 13 32

Figure 7.14. Number of tools per certainty level and per relative use duration

tools which were used for only a short time were done so as a result of a fracture during use. The fracture itself is often sufficiently characteristic to indicate hafting (see chapter 8). This implies that there is no true minimum use duration to allow hafting inferences on archaeological tools, as it also depends on the pressure exerted. Some macroscopic hafting evidence forms quickly and is so characteristic that hafted use can be identified without any doubt. It is not a coincidence that particularly adzing tools were interpreted on a macroscopic level after a short period of use. The same principle goes for the low and high power results. While more tools can be interpreted (see chapter 6), use duration does not seem to have an influence. It is the nature of the traces formed which determines whether a tool can be easily interpreted. Consequently, use duration has no major impact on the interpretability of hafting traces, even though it obviously influences the development or intensity of some traces. In some cases, even extensive use does not necessarily lead to distinctive macroscopic evidence, making such tools less interpretable than tools used in other conditions. Generally speaking, the more pressure exerted during use the higher the chance of distinctive hafting wear after a short period of use. In addition, some hafting arrangements lead to more obvious hafting wear than other arrangements.

7.5

7.6

EXPERIMENTER

The person who performs the experiment (tool use) is not a negligible factor. This is an issue which is difficult to measure and evaluate, but ways in which stone tools are manipulated and used, pressure is exerted, etc. are personal. This may determine the location of the best-developed use-wear traces or the hafted tool parts where most pressure is exerted. The impact of the experimenter is most obvious in prehension traces. The position and characteristics of the hand have a direct influence on the formation and distribution of prehension traces (see chapter 4). It was regularly observed that some experimenters systematically caused better developed prehension traces than others, even in identical experimental conditions. This is due to differences in grease on the hands of an individual, which influences the rate at which prehension polish develops. This feature is impossible to extrapolate towards archaeological conditions, as use duration, resharpening, the number of tools used subsequently, etc. vary too much, but it needs to be realised during experimentation. There is no direct impact on the interpretability of hafting traces, but greater pressure exerted may obviously result in better developed hafting traces within a shorter time span. The way a hafted tool is held is expected to be more influential, but mainly for use-wear traces.

TOOL PROTRUSION FROM THE HAFT

Whether or not a tool’s edges protrude from the haft influences trace formation. Protruding edges are more easily damaged and they will show polish not from the haft itself, but from the bindings used for fixation. On irregular edges, tool protrusion may explain differences in scarring intensity along the edges. When protruding edges are retouched, the impact from tool protrusion reduces significantly. On another level, it is clear that protruding unretouched edges are likely to cut bindings, during hafting or during subsequent use. Therefore, unretouched edges may perhaps not frequently have protruded from their hafts in the past. For male arrangements, this issue obviously has no relevance.

7.7

CONCLUSION

The variables discussed in this chapter all proved to be rightly classified among the secondary variables, as they only caused variations on existing patterns. The impact of raw material coarseness consists of a decrease in the overall trace development and in the certainty level of the macroscopic and low power interpretations of hafted use and the haft limit. Tool morphology proved mainly to influence the distribution of polish over the stone tool and the location of polish concentrations. Retouch counteracts the formation of scarring and reduces its visibility, while the protrusion of the tool from the haft encourages the formation of scarring, except when the edge is retouched. The experimenter may also cause some variations in hafting traces, but his/ her main impact is situated on the level of use-wear and prehension traces.

8. INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF HAFTING

Some evidence may indirectly indicate hafting. Tangs and notches are probably what come to mind right away, but their link with hafting needs to be addressed in a systematic way on an archaeological level (Rots 2002c). Other wear data may however provide proven clues for hafting; the most obvious examples are the distribution of use-wear traces over the active part and fractures.

8.1

USE-WEAR TRACES

If use-wear traces are used as indirect evidence of hafting, it is obviously not their morphology, but their distribution, which is important. The abrupt termination of well-developed use-wear traces is for instance a reliable argument, which is often visible macroscopically, but few materials worked cause this (e.g., cereals, earth). Here the goal is to examine whether the exact distribution of use-wear traces on the working edge differs depending on the prehensile mode and hafting arrangement: for instance, whether a certain hafting arrangement systematically results in Usewear distribution

Action

chiselling drilling perforating central grooving scraping grooving left scraping grooving right scraping adzing chiselling mainly left grooving scraping adzing mainly right grooving scraping chiselling slightly left grooving scraping chiselling slightly grooving right scraping Total nr of tools

latero-distal total nr % % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 54 0 0 0 0 1 8 92 1 8 0 0 3 23 0 0 0 0 1 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 13

de- centralised use-wear traces or whether the use-wear distribution differs between hand-held and hafted tools. If so, it provides an additional criterion which is useful for archaeological analysis. The exact distribution of usewear traces was not recorded for all tools, given that this variable was added later in the investigation (Table 7); the currently available toolset is thus limited (Fig. 8.1). 8.1.1 Hand-held versus hafted tools Centralised distributions proved absent on hand-held tools (Fig. 8.1). While the influence of tool use cannot be entirely ruled out, the trend appears strong and (largely) independent of tool function. In practice, it is indeed often easier to hold a tool (slightly) obliquely instead of perpendicular to the material worked. In addition, hand-held tools often proved to show an extremely de-centralised distribution with a considerable intrusion of use-wear traces more proximally (assuming a distal working edge) on one of the lateral edges. In most instances, this was the left edge (right-handed use), which corresponds to a tool which is used with its ventral face against the material being worked

lateral terminal total nr % % total nr % 4 0 0 5 18 0 0 21 4 0 0 5 100 5 0 0 6 1 6 100 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 4 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 6 11 0 0 13 4 0 0 5 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 4 0 0 5 4 0 0 5 1 84

Figure 8.1. Use-wear distributions per prehensile mode and/or per hafting arrangement

%

44

6

29

21

wrapping total nr % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 0 0 0 0 4 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

%

0

22

67

11

hand-held total nr % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 43 2 14 0 0 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

%

0

29

71

0

184

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

in a pushing direction away from the user (i.e., the dorsal face faces the user). By contrast, hafted tools frequently showed a centralised distribution next to de-centralised distributions with varying degrees of intrusion. Most schist scraping tools (exp. 13), for instance, show the considerable intrusion of use-wear evidence on one of the lateral edges. With regard to handedness (i.e., for hand-held tools), the evidence observed indicates that this issue is difficult to examine on the basis of use-wear evidence. Use-wear distribution depends on three factors: the direction of use, the orientation of the tool in the hand (i.e., ventral versus dorsal face facing the user), and handedness. For use-wear traces to be concentrated mainly on the left edge, different prehension modes can be proposed. If the tool is held in the way described above, but now in the left hand, it logically results in a concentration of use-wear traces on the right edge. However, if the tool is turned in the hand and used in a pulling motion towards the user, the same result can be obtained. This illustrates the difficulty of drawing inferences concerning handedness on the basis of use-wear traces alone. Of course, when this information is integrated with other data concerning the exact position of prehension wear, more inferences are possible. Exp. 19/3C for instance, discussed in chapter 3, is one of those tools which would allow far-reaching inferences. On one of the lateral edges (right), the prehension polish distribution could be nicely linked with the position of the individual fingers during use. If such evidence is used in combination with the use-wear distribution, inferences on handedness are possible. Other factors, like the intrusion of use-wear traces on the ventral face versus the dorsal face, may prove helpful, since the position of the tool with regard to the material being worked determines this. When a scraper is used with its ventral face towards the material being worked in a scraping motion, the tool will automatically be held in a quite oblique way (sharp working angle), irrespective of the direction of use. Such a tool position results in more intrusive use-wear on the ventral face than on the dorsal face. When the dorsal face faces the material worked, the tool is automatically held in a more perpendicular way towards the material worked, with less intrusive wear traces as result. In addition, the intrusion will be more or less similar on both faces. This factor cannot be considered independently of the material worked. After all, contact with a soft material generally leads to more intrusive usewear traces than with a hard material. For some materials worked the possible contact of one face with “splinters” of the material worked needs also to be taken into account. In the case of wood adzing, wood that has split off but has not yet detached may cause an intrusive polish on one of the faces, while this intrusion cannot be used for inferences regarding the tool’s position (i.e., working angle). Certain scraping motions may also result in intrusive polish on one of the faces (generally dorsal) which may not be used for determining the working angle. On the basis of the limited available evidence concerning use-wear organisation on hand-held tools versus hafted ones, centralised distribution appears to be potentially characteristic for hafted use, while de-centralised distribution occurs on both hand-held and hafted tools.

8.1.2 Different prehensile modes The main feature which determines use-wear distribution on hafted tools is handle morphology. After all, a laterodistal haft (i.e., bent) demands a totally different prehension mode from a straight haft. In an adzing motion, a laterodistal haft is generally held at the extremity with one or both hands. Centralised or slightly de-centralised use-wear traces can be expected. In a scraping motion on the other hand, two positions of the hand are possible. If the hands are positioned on the extremity of the haft, the tool becomes difficult to control and limited pressure can be exerted. Only when a groove is present in the material worked is this kind of grasp functional. The use-wear traces will be more or less centralised. In all other cases, use is far more efficient (i.e., in a broad sense) if one of the hands is positioned on the head of the haft, i.e. on the curve, while the other is placed at the extremity of the handle. This allows one to add pressure at the level of the head, while the hand on the extremity moves the tool back and forth. Use-wear traces will be somewhat de-centralised. If both hands are used on a straight handle, the tool is logically held perpendicular to the material being worked. This results in centralised wear traces. When only one hand holds the tool, there are two options. The tool is held in exactly the same way as when both hands are used, but now with one hand (see how one holds a chisel): centralised usewear is the result. Or the tool is held like a knife. If the material worked is in a fixed position, the tool will be held obliquely to the material worked, and the effect is similar to hand-held use with very de-centralised wear traces as a result. If the material worked is held in the other hand (e.g., piece of bone, antler), its position can be adapted, i.e. it can be turned towards the tool, and centralised use-wear traces may be the result. Given the great potential variation in handle morphology, the position of the hands and use motion, the link between use-wear distribution and prehensile mode is not easy to examine (Fig. 8.1). The choice is determined by the intended use and the position of the material worked (i.e., perpendicular in front of user, on the ground, oblique, etc.). Tools used for cutting and sawing are excluded in figure 8.1, since their use-wear distribution characteristics differ completely from those of terminally hafted tools. The latero-distal hafted tools included in fig. 8.1 were predominantly used for adzing and a de-centralised use-wear distribution is the result; however, it is not always equally prominent. This contradicts an expected potential centralised distribution on such tools. Apparently, a latero-distal hafted tool easily flips over to one side. The laterally hafted tool included is exp. 20/7: this tool was hafted in the centre between two pieces of wood, but the tool direction was transverse. The handle was thus placed horizontally with each hand on one of its extremities. It is not surprising that this resulted in centralised use-wear traces. For terminally hafted tools, the use-wear distribution differs according to the prehension modes described. Centralised distributions are most frequent, but these are obviously linked with tool motion. Drilling (i.e., mechanical), for instance, always results in centralised use-wear traces, even though polish may, for instance, be more intense on one edge, while scarring is

INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF HAFTING

Scar initiation

Unknown total nr %

invisible removed butt central dorsal dorsal central main ridge right ridge lateral right ventral ventral middle Total nr

2

25

5

63

1

13

8

Knapping total nr % 1 2 4 6 5 8 8 13 11 17 1 2 16 25 1 2 0 0 16 25 1 2 64

Cause Retouch Hafting total nr total nr % % 4 67

1

17

1

185

De-hafting Transport Trampling total nr total nr total nr

25

1

1

1

1

1

1 6

1

25

2 4

50

17 1

Figure 8.2. Fracture initiation per cause

more intense on the other. Scraping tools predominantly result in de-centralised use-wear distribution. There is no consistent link between a particular material worked and a particular use-wear distribution. The use-wear distribution of wrapped tools is comparable to that of hand-held tools: no centralised distributions were recorded. These data show that it is difficult to base oneself on usewear evidence for a reconstruction of the hafting arrangement used. The only significant result is the absence of centralised use-wear distribution on wrapped and hand-held tools, and on latero-distally hafted tools. Consequently, centralised use-wear distribution necessarily corresponds to an arrangement similar to that in exp. 20/739 or to a terminal hafting. De-centralised use-wear traces can be linked with several prehensile modes. On the basis of ethnographic data, an attempt was made to go further in the interpretation of use-wear distributions and their possible link with a particular hafting mode (Beyries and Rots 2008).

from fractures from other causes. The recorded termination always concerns the distal part: for fractures on the proximal extremity, the recorded termination is that visible on the remaining distal tool part; for medial fractures, the fracture recorded is the one on the distal extremity (the other one is simply the opposite, e.g., a hinge fracture is the opposite of a feather fracture). In total, 241 tools show some kind of fracture; of course, not all these tools had been used or hafted. Tool thickness is a very important factor: the majority of hafting fractures (16 out of 26) occurred on tools with a medial thickness of 7 mm at the most. All experimental tools with a thickness of 6 mm or less used in high-pressure motions (adzing, chiselling) fractured during use, generally within a few seconds or minutes. In most cases, contact with a harder irregularity in the material being worked (e.g., wood) is sufficient to cause a fracture. The fact that none of the hand-held tools fractured during use is interesting, but they were not used in a high-pressure motion.

8.2

8.2.1 Proximal extremity Fractures on the proximal extremity are considered to have removed only (a part of) the bulb or the butt. If a more significant part of the blade/flake was removed, the fracture was classified as a proximal fracture. For the proximal extremity, knapping fractures are most frequent. Only four hafting fractures were recorded (Fig. 8.2). The initiations vary in location: dorsal, lateral right and ventral middle. Only a lateral right initiation was not recorded for any of the other possible fracture causes and may potentially be typical of a fracture inside the haft. The tool in question is exp. 26/5, a tanged burin used for grooving wood. Two types of fracture terminations did not occur for any of the other causes: a combination of a feather and step termination (next to each other on the same face), and a hinge which continues into a step and terminates in a feather. The associated scarring seems more typical. Most knapping fractures are not associated with scarring as the blank generally “jumps” away from the core. Only when a blank

FRACTURES

If hafting fractures prove sufficiently characteristic and distinct, they may potentially be used as indirect evidence of hafting. All fractures are recorded and described in table 3.6 and their cause, initiation, termination and associated scarring are included. All fracture causes are examined, including those resulting from knapping, retouch and transport. Intentional fractures are not included as these systematically proved to show a clear bulb (Geerts 1999). Four fracture locations are considered: proximal extremity, proximal (e.g., in the haft), medial (e.g., at the haft limit), distal extremity (generally a partial fracture, i.e. intense scarring). For each of these locations, it is examined whether hafting fractures have differing attributes 39

Even though only one tool is included, this arrangement can hardly lead to any use-wear distribution other than a centralised one.

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

2

2

4

1

Figure 8.3. Fracture terminations per cause

Again, the associated scarring is very intense for hafting fractures. Only one knapping fracture was associated with a moderate amount of scarring, while all hafting fractures were associated with intense to very intense bifacial scarring. 8.2.3 Medial Medial hafting fractures (i.e., at the haft limit) are frequent. They tend to be initiated from the main ridge (Fig. 8.4). Laterally induced fractures are also again associated with hafting, except for one induced by retouch. The hafting ones relate to tanged burins used for grooving wood

transport

2

1

trampling

use

18

hafting

retouch

1

4

1 7

1

Figure 8.4. Fracture initiations per cause

The hafting fracture terminations show a high relative number of “simple” terminations, because the fracture is now largely located outside the haft so the fractured part can “jump” away (Fig. 8.5). Some hindrance from the haft may occur, since haft limit fractures generally occur a few millimetres inside the haft. Complex terminations are generally associated with tools used in high-pressure motions, like adzing and chiselling tools. Only the hafting fractures are associated with scarring, varying in intensity. This scarring can be bifacial (2 cases), but it is usually unifacial (dorsal in 3 cases, ventral in 5 cases).

feather feather combined with hinge into feather feather into hinge feather into step into feather hinge hinge into feather hinge into feather combined with step hinge into feather into hinge hinge into step lateral feather into hinge lateral hinge into feather snap snap oblique Total number

2

2

4

trampling

2 1

1 3

transport

1

2

1 3 1

Fracture termination 1

10 4 1 1 2

1 1

use

transport

1

1 1

absent invisible dorsal main ridge ventral ventral left corner ventral right corner ventral middle ventral lateral Total nr

hafting

1 1

hafting

1

retouch

crushed feather feather hinge hinge into feather hinge into feather combined with step Total nr

knapping

Fracture termination

unknown

Fracture cause

Fracture initiation

retouch

8.2.2 Proximal Proximal hafting fractures are those which occur within the haft, but not at the extremity. Proximal knapping fractures remove more just than the bulb or the butt. Overall, proximal fractures are rare; only four proximal hafting fractures occurred and they were systematically initiated from the dorsal ridge onwards. Only two proximal knapping fractures were observed (in contrast to 64 fractures of the proximal extremity), both initiated from the dorsal ridge. Two retouch-induced fractures were observed, both initiated from the ventral face onward. One transport fracture occurred, initiated from the dorsal ridge. The fracture terminations differ somewhat between the causes (Fig. 8.3). Crushed feather termination supports the frequent association of hafting fractures with scarring: the tool is blocked in the haft, and when it fractures inside the haft, friction between the tool parts generally causes a lot of scarring, or in this case crushing of the feather termination. Complex terminations tend also to be associated with hafting.

(exp. 26/1 and 26/3), like the laterally induced fracture of the proximal extremity (see supra). The use fractures are a result of use as a chisel (i.e., of the stone tool without haft).

knapping

is stuck between the leg and the core may some limited scarring form. In the case of hafting fractures, scarring is frequently present and intense. On the proximal extremity it occurred in association with three of the four fractures, and in each case the associated scarring was classified as considerable (“3”). Scars are most frequently dorsal or bifacial. To conclude, lateral initiations, certain terminations and intense associated scarring may be suggestive of a hafting cause.

knapping

186

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 6 2 1 1

1

1 1 1 4

1 1 7

Figure 8.5. Fracture terminations per cause

18

2

INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF HAFTING

8.2.4 Distal extremity No hafting fractures occurred at the distal end, only partial use fractures (i.e., removing only a part of the working edge). Knapping fractures are extremely frequent (in 99 out of a total of 241 fractured tools). The majority (77) of fractures are initiated from the ventral face, in contrast to the proximal extremity where initiations were equally distributed over the ventral face and the dorsal ridge. The knapping fractures at the distal end terminate predominantly in hinge (44 cases) and are not associated with scarring. 8.2.5 Conclusion To conclude, fractures may indeed provide suggestive or supportive evidence for hafting, though they should not be

187

used as conclusive evidence in themselves. Some tendencies are observed, but not all traits are equally significant for hafting. Most hafting fractures occur at the haft limit, usually about one or two millimetres inside the haft. This is the point where the tool is most vulnerable when pressure is exerted, in particular when the stone tool is thin (6 mm or less). The most distinctive trait of hafting fractures is their association with often intense scarring. In addition, lateral initiations seem relatively frequent on male-hafted grooving tools (exp. 26), as pressure is mainly exerted on one edge only.

9. BLIND TEST

The final blind test can be categorised as gradual in approach. All methods were used, but one after the other and more or less independently of each other. This test, as well as a more integrated one, was published (Rots et al. 2006). Tools were first analysed on a macroscopic level, next on a low power level, and finally on a high power level. Per method, a final interpretation was proposed which was not modified following subsequent analyses of the same tool using another method. Interpretations were not crosschecked for potential contradictions. Information retrieved per method was separated as far as possible, but this separation remains somewhat artificial (i.e., one analyst). The results are discussed per analytical level. The impossibility of interpreting part of the hafting arrangement is not necessarily a mistake as the magnification level may not allow such detail. Consequently, interpretations marked “-” are not treated as mistakes, but as soon as a value is provided and proves wrong, it is counted as a mistake, even if the magnification level theoretically does not allow the detail RESULTS Used part Worked material Action Relative duration USE HAFTING PREHENSION Hafted / hand-held part Haft limit Haft material Contact zone haft Wrapping Contact zone wrapping Bindings Contact zone bindings Fixation Contact zone fixation Haft type Hafting method Tool placement Tool direction Orientation AP INTERPRETATION

BT10 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 0,5 0,5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0,5 0 1 1 1 0

BT11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT13 1 1 1 1 1 x x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

provided (e.g., exact material identifications). Ten tools are included and no guidelines were given to the experimenters. Tools were handed over cleaned; they were re-cleaned, including by immersion in HCl (10%). No attempt was made to distinguish between bone and antler; such a distinction is difficult, as agreed upon by most analysts.

9.1

RESULTS

9.1.1 Scores First of all, conclusive tables with the blind test results are presented per analytical method. The exact way in which the correctness of the results was evaluated is explained in section 9.1.2. and depends on the importance of the mistake: for instance, an inexact evaluation of relative duration is not considered of much importance when the determination of other aspects of use (used tool part, material worked, use motion) is correct. BT14 1 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1

BT15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT16 1 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT17 1 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT18 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT19 1 0,5 1 1 0,5 1 1 0,5

TOTAL (/10) 10 6,5 10 9 8 10 10 7 5,5 6,5 8 8 8 8 9 9 7,5 8 9 9 9 7

Figure 9.1. Macroscopic test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant or not provided; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation)

190

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

RESULTS Used part Worked material Action Relative duration USE HAFTING PREHENSION Hafted / hand-held part Haft limit Haft material Contact zone haft Wrapping Contact zone wrapping Bindings Contact zone bindings Fixation Contact zone fixation Haft type Hafting method Tool placement Tool direction Orientation AP INTERPRETATION

BT10 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 0 0,5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

BT11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT13 1 1 1 1 1 x x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT14 1 0 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1

BT15 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0,5

BT16 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT18 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

BT19 1 0 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

TOTAL (/10) 10 8 10 6 9 9 10 5 6 7 10 10 9 9 8 8 6,5 8 9 9 9 6,5

Figure 9.2. Low Power test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation)

The macroscopic results appear surprisingly good (Fig. 9.1). However, for some interpretations the certainty level is poor (see infra), given the restricted nature of macroscopic data. The results are a factor of experience combined with the importance of trace patterning. The latter significantly facilitates a macroscopic distinction between hafted and hand-held tools. The low power results appear less successful than the macroscopic ones (Fig. 9.2), but this is not really true: the interpretation provided was more detailed but proved wrong in some cases, while the macroscopic analysis did not allow an interpretation. The best results are clearly obtained with high power, given that everything could be interpreted (Fig. 9.3). The high power analysis is no doubt most suitable for haft material identifications. 9.1.2 Evaluation Details concerning the experiments are included in table 11.1, descriptive data in tables 11.2 and analytical data in tables 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5. As with the previous test (see chapter 3), the certainty level of the interpretation is included in brackets. 9.1.2.1 BT 10 Experimental data. BT 10 is a scraper used for adzing wood for a few seconds, after which the tool fractured at the haft limit. The tool was hafted in a male split wooden haft and fixed with the aid of leather bindings.

Macroscopic interpretation. Use: adze wood for a limited to moderate duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4), probably in a male haft, but a juxtaposed haft cannot be ruled out (2). The haft material was most likely antler, perhaps wood (2). A wrapping was used (4). Low Power interpretation. Use: adze wood for a moderate duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) with its ventral face against a juxtaposed (3) probably antler (or wooden) (3) haft with the aid of bindings (2). High Power interpretation. Use: adze wood for a moderate duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) with its ventral face against a juxtaposed (4) antler haft (4) with the aid of bindings (3). Discussion. The interpretation was only partly correct. Tool use was correctly inferred, but the duration was not. Given a very typical step-terminating use scar on the distal end, it was certain that the tool was used to adze a moderately hard material; wood is then most likely. Some wood polish was visible under magnification, so a minimum use of about 10 minutes was assumed. After all, the working edge often hardly intrudes into the tree and a limited amount of use-wear does not necessarily indicate a short period of use. It is important to note that a correct interpretation had already been made on a macroscopic level, thanks to the large use scar. Although the hafting arrangement was interpreted partly correctly for some magnifications, it should be con-

BLIND TEST

RESULTS Used part Worked material Action Relative duration USE HAFTING PREHENSION Hafted / hand-held part Haft limit Haft material Contact zone haft Wrapping Contact zone wrapping Bindings Contact zone bindings Fixation Contact zone fixation Haft type Hafting method Tool placement Tool direction Orientation AP INTERPRETATION

BT10 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT13 1 1 1 1 1 x x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1

BT15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0,5

BT17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0,5

BT18 1 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

BT19 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5

191

TOTAL (/10) 10 8,5 9,5 9,5 9 10 10 6 7 7,5 10 10 10 10 9 9 6,5 9 10 10 10 7,5

Figure 9.3. High Power test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation

sidered wrong (Fig. 9.1 – 9.3). The tool fractured at the haft limit and only the part which protruded from the haft had been provided. Only very limited hafting wear was thus present on the tool part in question. In this case, a correct hafting interpretation fully depended on the correct interpretation of the fracture’s cause. After all, if the fracture was present before use and hafting, hafting traces must be present, given the tool’s use. If the fracture occurred during use, hardly any hafting traces should be present since tools generally fracture round the haft limit. Both possibilities were evaluated, in particular on a macroscopic level. The few retouch scars present on the dorsal right edge appeared to have been cut through by the fracture, which logically implies that the fracture occurred after or during retouch, but this remained uncertain. In addition, the fracture was recognised as identical to that of exp. 1/11, which occurred during wood adzing. Lastly, the proximal end of the tool proved to be hardly damaged, and all damage was attributed to fracturing. This last observation left two options for the fracture’s cause: either tool use was very short and the fracture occurred during knapping, or the tool fractured during use (irrespective of the use duration). During subsequent observations, these macroscopic considerations were apparently ignored as the fracture was attributed to knapping (or retouching) in combination with a moderate period of use. The interpretation was based on the presence of a minor gloss in the proximal zone and the awareness that most hafting fractures occur at the haft

limit. If the minor gloss was due to hafting, the fracture could not be due to hafted use and had to have been present beforehand. In reality, the minor gloss was produced as a result of the fracture. This misinterpretation of the fracture’s cause is responsible for all subsequent mistakes concerning the hafting arrangement: if one is certain that a tool was used hafted, that influences the interpretation of the available evidence. The biggest problem was the lack of scarring on the proximal left edge, because wood adzing generally results in intense hafting scarring. An arrangement was thus proposed which does not really result in intense hafting wear: a wrapping prevents the formation of intense hafting traces. The interpretation of the use of an antler haft is based on the observation of antler-like polish spots on the ventral butt. These spots prove to have been caused by the fracture (i.e., flint-on-flint friction). Poorlydeveloped antler polish spots and limited flint-on-flint friction polish spots are difficult to distinguish. A male hafting arrangement was ruled out on the basis of the fact that it generally causes intense wear, in particular on the edges. Such wear was absent, so a juxtaposed haft which was wider than the tool’s width was inferred: typical binding scars and intrusive wear were absent, so the edges could not have protruded from the haft. Consequently, the whole interpretation depended on the correct interpretation of the fracture’s cause. While a correct interpretation was initially proposed, it was later discarded. All further inferences, relying on an incorrect

192

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

assumption, were necessarily wrong: the score for the final interpretation is thus “0” although some correct determinations of the hafting arrangement were made. This mistake could have been avoided. 9.1.2.2 BT 11 Experimental data. A scraper used for wood adzing for 35 minutes. The tool was hafted in a male split wooden haft and fixed with a little resin. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: adze wood for a moderate to long duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male haft (1), probably indirectly with the aid of resin (3). The haft material could not be specified. Low Power interpretation. Use: adze wood for a moderate duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (2) wooden (or antler) haft (2) with the aid of resin (3). High Power interpretation. Use: adze wood for a moderate to long duration (3); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (2) wooden haft (3), perhaps with some resin (0). If resin was used, it must have been in a limited amount (4). Discussion. Tool use was identified correctly. The interpretation of the hafting arrangement is also correct, given that resin use prevents a distinction being drawn between male and male split hafts. Generally, a haft material determination is also not possible, but the limited resin allowed some contact. This explains the correct high power determination and why it was specifically mentioned that limited resin was used. On a high power level, the use of resin was more uncertain, given the presence of a clear wood hafting polish, especially most proximally. Therefore a male haft instead of a male split haft was opted for: a tool cannot remain fixed in a male split haft without further fixation. No wood polish but a rough polish was observed on the edges: it was difficult to interpret and it was attributed to resin contact. Consequently, the interpretation can be considered correct. A distinction between a male and male split haft is rarely possible when resin is used, just like a determination of the haft material on a macroscopic and low power level. Doubts concerning the use of resin on a high power level followed the observation of clear wood hafting wear next to resin-like polish spots. The mention made of limited resin use proves that the inferences were correct. 9.1.2.3 BT 12 Experimental data. A tanged burin used to groove fresh bone for 30 minutes. The tool was hafted in a male antler haft. No further fixation was used. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: groove a hard animal matter for a moderate to long duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (4) antler (or bone) (3) haft, without further fixation (3-4). Low Power interpretation. Use: groove, almost cut a hard animal matter for a long time (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (4) antler or bone (4) haft without further fixation (4). High Power interpretation. Use: groove a hard animal

matter for a long time (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (4) antler (or bone) haft (4) without further fixation (4). Discussion. Tool use was correctly inferred. The interpretation of the hafting arrangement was also correct on every analytical level. The presence of a tang was of course a major aid, in particular on a macroscopic level, even though the experimenters could have decided to use it in a different way. A tang assumes a male haft and all evidence proved to support this interpretation. 9.1.2.4 BT 13 Experimental data. This scraper remained unused and it was not hafted. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: unused (1); Prehensile mode: not hafted (1). Low Power interpretation. Use: unused (2); Prehensile mode: not hafted (2). High Power interpretation. Use: unused (3); Prehensile mode: not hafted (3). Discussion. The interpretation is correct on all levels. The differences in certainty levels are logical, since it is difficult to be certain about lack of use on a macroscopic level: traces may always be visible under magnification. Therefore, certainty increases with increasing magnification. 9.1.2.5 BT 14 Experimental data. Burin used to groove dry antler for 55 minutes. The tool was hafted in a male split antler haft with the aid of resin. Round this whole, leather bindings were attached. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: groove (perhaps plane) wood for a moderate to long duration (2); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (2) bone or antler haft (1), with the aid of resin (3). Low Power interpretation. Use: groove, almost plane wood for a moderate duration (3); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male bone or antler (3) haft with the aid of resin (3). High Power interpretation. Use: groove (or a similar use motion) a hard animal matter for a moderate to long duration (3); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (4) bone or antler haft (3) with the aid of resin (3). Discussion. Use was correctly inferred on a high power level and it was partially correct on the other levels. Wood is moderately hard and it can be confused with hard animal matter when only poor to moderate scarring is present. On a low power level, the quite intrusive use polish was considered too intrusive for a hard animal matter. The hafting arrangement was interpreted as correctly as possible. The use of resin significantly hampers the distinction between male and male split hafts, so this mistake should be overlooked. The fact that bindings were attached round the whole was also impossible to infer: their use is not necessary for the strength of the hafting arrangement and there was no direct contact between stone tool and haft. The interpretations are considered correct.

BLIND TEST

9.1.2.6 BT 15 Experimental data. Scraper used to adze earth for more than 30 minutes. The tool was hafted in a wooden male split haft and fixed with leather bindings. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: adze earth for a long duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted in a male split (3) wooden (3) haft with the aid of bindings (2). Low Power interpretation. Use: adze earth for a very long duration (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male or male split (3) wooden or antler (3) haft with the aid of resin (3). High Power interpretation. Use: adze earth for a long to very long time (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) with its ventral face against a juxtaposed (3) wooden haft (3) with the aid of bindings (4). Discussion. Use was correctly inferred on all levels. Surprisingly, the hafting arrangement was identified only on a macroscopic level. On a low power level, wood and antler were both considered, and a different fixation mode was inferred. The latter mistake is more important than the former; it was a consequence of the observation of rough polish spots for which two interpretations were likely: the intrusion of earth particles between tool and haft or the use of resin. Given the absence of typical binding scars, the latter interpretation was favoured even though intruding earth particles are frequent in this kind of use. The restricted nature of polish on the dorsal face in combination with a male-type haft also pointed to the use of resin, even though the presence of cortex and the considerable longitudinal curvature of the tool indicate that these observations were not very important. On a high power level, a different haft type was proposed, but bindings were again correctly inferred. Two observations are responsible for the haft type inferred: there was a clear difference in polish intensity between the dorsal and ventral faces, and the dorsal polish was rougher and more intrusive. The former was a result of the presence of cortex and the considerable longitudinal curvature of the tool which hinders intense haft contact with both faces. The latter was the result of intruding earth particles which dominated polish formation. The mistake is thus of limited importance and can be accounted for by the available evidence, but the extent to which intrusive earth particles can influence the process of hafting trace formation should have been realised. This mistake could have been avoided, but no important interpretative error lies at its basis. 9.1.2.7 BT 16 Experimental data. Scraper used to scrape relatively fresh bone for 40 minutes. The tool was hafted with its ventral face against a juxtaposed antler haft and fixed with leather bindings. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: scrape moderately hard material, possible hide positioned on a hard material or wood, for a long up to very long time (2); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a wooden haft (0). The haft type cannot be specified, but it is not male (1). Bindings may have been used (1). Low Power interpretation. Use: scrape a hard material, possibly bone or antler, for a short or moderate time (3);

193

Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male split (2) bone or antler haft (2) with the aid of bindings (2). High Power interpretation. Use: scrape hard animal matter for a long time (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male split (3) bone or antler haft (3) with the aid of bindings (4). Discussion. The tool’s use was correctly inferred on a low and high power level. The mistake in the macroscopic determination of the material worked is only partial: a moderately hard material was suggested, but its exact nature was uncertain. Given the fact that fresh bone was scraped, this mistake is understandable on a macroscopic level. The hafting arrangement was partially wrongly interpreted. On a macroscopic level, a more detailed interpretation than hafted use was extremely difficult, even impossible. The use of bindings was likely, based on some macroscopic scars with a curved or bent initiation. Other inferences were assumptions instead of well-founded interpretations. Given the limited scarring, no direct male hafting could have been used. The final score (0.5) should thus be placed in perspective and is perhaps too high. On a low and high power level, the interpretation was correct apart from the haft type: a male split haft instead of a juxtaposed haft was inferred. However, the two can be difficult to distinguish in the case of limited dorsal haft contact. Only limited polish could be observed on a low and high power level, in particular on the dorsal face, and a male split haft with poor haft contact was therefore considered to be most likely, even though a juxtaposed hafting could also account for that. Little friction may occur in a juxtaposed arrangement used for scraping, in which case scarring due to binding contact forms the most significant evidence. That explains why bindings were inferred with certainty. The mistake does not result from a fundamental interpretative error, but it is difficult to avoid: little wear can be interpreted either way. Perhaps a more detailed examination of the wear pattern could have prevented this. 9.1.2.8 BT 17 Experimental data. Tanged scraper used to scrape more or less fresh bone for 35 minutes. The tool was hafted in a male wooden haft without further fixation. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: scrape wood for a moderate period of time (2); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (4) bone or antler haft (3) without further fixation (2-3). Low Power interpretation. Use: scrape a hard material, possibly bone or antler, for a moderate length of time (2); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male antler or bone haft (3) without further fixation (3). High Power interpretation. Use: scrape hard animal matter for a long to very long time (4); Prehensile mode: hafted in a male (3) bone or antler haft (3) with the aid of resin (3). Discussion. Tool use was correctly inferred on a low and high power level. On a macroscopic level, the hardness of the material worked was misinterpreted, probably due to the freshness of the bone worked. Nevertheless, it is a recurrent mistake (cf. BT14, BT16) and shows that one has to remain

194

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

careful with macroscopic (relative) worked material determinations. The use of a magnification, even if limited, prevents such errors. The hafting arrangement was correctly inferred apart from the haft material, and on a high power level the use of resin. Given the dry wood used for hafting, a distinction from hard animal matter is very difficult to draw. Here, the tang no doubt influenced the determination of the haft material: a male haft is much easier to fabricate in hard animal matter than in wood. In spite of possible prejudice about the haft material, it is impossible to know whether the absence of a tang would have allowed a correct determination. Many anvil traces hampered observations. Distinct hafting polish was rare and all determinations of haft material were highly questionable. The interpretation of resin use was based on the occurrence of a somewhat rough surface polish. However, such polish can also result from low-pressure wood contact. Here, the option that resin was used seemed to be a plausible explanation for the poor hafting traces. It is a mistake which is most probably avoidable, and only the typical friction spots should be used as evidence of the use of resin, in particular for male arrangements where friction upon extraction may be intense. 9.1.2.9 BT 18 Experimental data. Burin used to groove dry antler for 60 minutes. The tool was held in the hand. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: groove hard animal matter for a moderate to long period (4); Prehensile mode: hand-held (2). Low Power interpretation. Use: groove a hard material, possibly bone or antler, for a moderate period (2); Prehensile mode: hafted (3) terminally, possibly in an antler or bone haft (3). High Power interpretation. Use: groove wood for a moderate period (2); Prehensile mode: hand-held (3). Discussion. Tool use was interpreted correctly, apart from the material worked on a high power level. This is mainly the result of the very limited use polish. The available polish seemed to intrude into concavities, which contraindicates a hard material. The polish morphology was uncharacteristic, given its restricted nature. However, wood should have caused more intrusive polish. The scarring evidence proved more indicative of a hard material worked. Both on a macroscopic and high power level the tool was correctly interpreted as having been hand-held. The low power evidence for hafting was not very convincing, but it was nevertheless considered to be the most likely option even though an exact arrangement could not be inferred. The fact that only a possible haft material (i.e., bone or antler) was proposed is significant. After all, the low power interpretation of the tool’s use concerned the same material, and this correspondence in material is typical for prehension. The impossibility of inferring the exact hafting arrangement is a logical consequence of its absence. If the low power data had been considered together with the high power (or macroscopic) data, this mistake would certainly have been avoided. Re-evaluation of the data after the completion of all analyses would have made it clear that prehension was the most likely interpretation.

9.1.2.10 BT 19 Experimental data. Burin used with its distal right edge to plane antler for 20 minutes and subsequently to groove wood with its tip. The tool was hafted in a male wooden haft with the aid of resin. Macroscopic interpretation. Use: plane wood (or a mineral matter) for a long period (2); Prehensile mode: hafted (3), but no further specification can be made. Low Power interpretation. Use: groove and/or plane a moderately hard material, probably wood, for a moderate time (3); Prehensile mode: hafted (3) in a male haft (1) of unknown material with the aid of resin (3). High Power interpretation. Use: plane hard animal matter for a long to very long time (4); Prehensile mode: hafted (4) in a male (2) hard animal matter haft (1) with the aid of resin (3). Discussion. Tool use was interpreted only partly correctly. It has to be admitted that use-wear evidence was not the main focus and more than one tool use was not even considered. Use-wear determinations were always aimed at correctly interpreting the prehensile wear evidence, and in this case the determination may have been made too quickly. Nevertheless, two different use motions were distinguished on a low power level, and that interpretation is in fact correct. The worst mistake occurred on a high power level, where both uses could perhaps have been distinguished even though overlapping use zones are not always easy to diagnose. The hafting arrangement could not be interpreted macroscopically, although hafted use was certain. The macroscopic interpretation was thus not wrong; there was simply too little evidence. The low power interpretation is correct from the same perspective. The haft type and fixation mode could now be interpreted, but still not the material. This is again no mistake, but a defendable and well-founded restriction to a lower interpretative level. On a high power level, an attempt was made to propose a haft material, although it was uncertain (level 1). This haft material interpretation should of course be considered wrong, but the size of this mistake is limited given the uncertainties involved. No true interpretative mistakes were thus made for the hafting arrangement. The limited available evidence simply necessitated a more limited interpretative level.

9.2

DISCUSSION: INTERPRETATIVE POTENTIAL PER METHOD

If the results are placed in their proper perspective, the best score was obtained with high power, in particular when the scores for the macroscopic interpretation of BT16 (see supra) and BT19 (for which no interpretation was provided) are subtracted. Nevertheless, the macroscopic success rate was surprisingly high even though certainty levels were poor. Macroscopic interpretations were often educated guesses instead of being based on good evidence. Limited macroscopic traces are present, but when one is experienced, adequate interpretations (or assumptions) prove to be achievable in some cases. This supports the relevance

BLIND TEST

of macroscopic analysis for the first identification of hafted tools within an assemblage, if the analyst is acquainted with hafting traces. It is possible to draw a first distinction between hafted and hand-held tools, although often with a lot of uncertainty. Arrangements which leave little hafting evidence are difficult to identify on a macroscopic level. For the exact hafting arrangement, the macroscopic analysis scores poorly. Low power analysis seems more appropriate and high power analysis generally produces the most reliable interpretations. If mistakes are compared between methods, they often prove to differ. This implies that a combination of different methods would allow a high success rate, as is evidenced by other tests: the final blind test included in Rots et al. (2006), in which all methods were combined, allowed a success rate of 75%. No errors were made concerning tool use, the distinction between prehension and hafting, the localisation of the haft limit, and a wood versus antler haft. The few problems concerned only the identification of the haft type (Rots et al. 2006).

9.3

CONCLUSION

All in all, the end result of the blind test is fairly satisfactory: – distinction between hand-held and hafted tools entirely correct, apart from one mistake with low power – three tools interpreted correctly on all levels using all methods; three additional tools using at least one method

195

– hafted or hand-held part interpreted correctly at all times – only a few mistakes were made for the haft limit location, which is better than in the preliminary blind test (see chapter 3) – the haft material was misinterpreted for three tools only (confusion between hard animal matter and hard wood) – the fixation method was well interpreted overall; none of the mistakes recurred. Per magnification, only one tool was misinterpreted. – only for three tools was the haft type partially misinterpreted for all methods (although negligible in at least 2 cases). The macroscopic determination scored the highest – the other aspects of the hafting arrangement were interpreted correctly It seems that the interpretative limit of the method has been more or less reached. It is difficult to rule out the making of the above mistakes in the future, although it is believed that the success rate on archaeological assemblages can be higher simply because of the higher “unity” between the tools, instead of on a completely disparate set of independent tools. Blind tests proved very useful in the continuous process towards better or more adequate interpretations. They need to be elaborated upon continuously to improve the method and to test interpretations on a regular basis independently of one’s experience.

10. DISCUSSION

10.1

RELEVANCE OF FUNCTIONAL STUDIES INCLUDING HAFTING

The importance of functional studies which include hafting and integrate other site information (typology, technology, spatial data) lies at different levels. On an artefact level, not just use (Plisson 1982; Vaughan 1985; Symens 1986; Beyries 1987a), but also the prehensile mode can be determined, and an insight is obtained into the life cycle of individual tools (see section 1.2), for instance use intensity and discard patterns (Odell 1996b; Rots 2003; 2005). On a site level, the site’s function, its specialisation and the spatiofunctional organisation within it are studied (Cahen et al. 1979; Plisson 1985b; De Bie and Caspar 2000). Production waste and production failures are distinguished from finished implements the use and prehensile mode of which are examined. A distinction can be made between pieces which are produced and used on site and those which are imported as used or exhausted finished products (Rots and Van Peer 2006). On a regional scale, such studies allow the examination of the relationship between sites of similar or different functions, tool transport between sites and a comparison of production and hafting modes (Odell 1987; 1994a; Odell 1996a). A functional study generates data unattainable through other means, while the identification of hafting and hafting modes allows an insight into the organic part of a tool which is rarely preserved, and into technological and behavioural complexity. Functional studies can therefore make an important contribution to the understanding of behavioural systems, but the results need to be integrated with other site data (Golson 1977; Isaac 1977; Odell 1980). Ethnographic data provide ample indications of the importance of a haft in contrast to the replaceable stone tool (e.g., Ethiopia). A haft is often inherited from one generation to the next, while stone tools are items with a comparatively short use life (Rots and Williamson 2004). Depending on the tool’s use, the manufacture of a haft may be time-consuming. Raw materials differ significantly in their resistance to pressure and flexion, and in the ease with which a certain haft type can be produced (Rots 2008). In addition, a haft’s morphology, type and raw material also depend on the intended use of the tool (Rots 2002a). While a hand-held stone tool needs to possess an area where it can easily be gripped, a hafted stone tool needs to have a part which can be fixed in or against a haft. Depending on the hafting mode, the requirements of this area differ. Aside from perhaps its thickness, hafting with resin sets low demands on the morphology and size of the area to be hafted, while arrangements with bindings need

a larger area in order to ensure fixation. Certain arrangements (e.g., juxtaposed) also allow more variety in size and shape than others (e.g., male). Given the considerable impact that the prehensile mode may have on the general stone tool morphology, its examination seems essential for understanding morphological variability. Hafting practices may affect a group’s technological organisation and mobility patterns. There is the need to procure hafting materials, which necessitates expertise regarding material qualities and constraints, and a sufficient knowledge of the environment and the availability of materials. Subsequently, the intention to haft a tool may affect the stone tool production process and its organisation. After all, the stone tool is generally adapted to fit a certain haft instead of the opposite, particularly given the generally longer use life of hafts. As failure and breakage easily occur in stone tool production, it is more straightforward to integrate hafting within the stone tool production process instead of separating it out (Van Peer et al. 2008). Such a strategy prevents the need for additional visits to a quarry or raw material outcrop. In addition, the availability of the stone tool to be replaced (Rots and Van Peer 2006) and / or the handle in which the new stone tool needs to be mounted facilitates the production of an item which fits. It allows one to try out whether the stone tool fits the haft and to continue its reduction (e.g., thickness) when it does not. This strategy implies that the knapper hafts the stone tools or at least has sufficient expertise regarding this process. Consequently, hafting is an essential aspect to consider when examining tool production processes. The existence of systematic, morphologically-controlled blank production may perhaps evidence a different technological organisation in which the knapper is not necessarily responsible for hafting. In such cases, the person who hafts the stone tools could be responsible for the adaptation (e.g., retouching) of the available blanks to fit particular hafts. Blank production on the one hand and tool shaping and hafting on the other hand would then be the result of two separate processes; two processes which are potentially undertaken in different locations by different people. The intention to haft a stone tool is thus a determining factor for a group’s technological organisation and for the choices made. It also determines the characteristics of potential stock items. The way in which a tool is hafted affects its maintainability, in particular the ease with which it can be repaired. Both the handle and the fixation mechanism may fail during use. A handle can fracture or split, bindings can be cut, or resin can fracture, etc. Depending on the damage, a failing handle can be temporarily repaired, for instance by adding a binding to prevent or delay further splitting,

198

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

but it will eventually have to be replaced by a new handle. Repairing it may allow one to await a more suitable time and location for producing a new handle. Generally, failing fixation mechanisms are less fundamental: fixing stone tools in a handle is a relatively speedy process in comparison to handle production, and at least bindings can be easily replaced anywhere. Repairing a resin fixation demands at least the presence of a hearth, but it is possible to reheat the resin to ensure better fixation, or to add more resin to the existing arrangement. When a stone tool loosens in a pressure fixation up to the degree at which it hinders use, the stone tool will have to be replaced. Complex behaviour defined as “that which requires successive cognitive components that demand the actor to plan several consecutive steps (such as those used in the manufacture of multi-component artefacts) before the execution of the first step, or which require deep understanding of the operation of variables and their complex interplay as well as their reactions to deliberate manipulations by the actor.” (Langley et al. 2008: 291) would classify hafting as a valid indication of complex behaviour. Neanderthals have long been assumed to be incapable of hafting, in contrast to early anatomically modern humans; and hafting used to be linked with certain Upper Palaeolithic inventions, as one of the (partial) explanations for changes in stone tool technology and repertoire. In the meantime, there is ample evidence that both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans were capable of hafting their stone tools, long before the Upper Palaeolithic (Beyries 1988; AndersonGerfaud 1990; Hardy and Kay 1999; Rots 2009; In prep; Rots and De Loecker In prep.) or Late Stone Age (Lombard 2005; Rots and Van Peer 2006; Van Peer et al. 2008; Rots and Van Peer Submitted). Hafting procedures were not necessarily very different. When only the functional edge is considered, morphologies appear to be relatively recurrent for particular tasks (not necessarily implying a unique relationship between one particular edge morphology and one particular task). From a functional viewpoint and on the basis of the limited available data, there tends to be a difference in the emphasis placed on either the morphology of the functional edge or the morphology of the stone tool as a whole. This distinction may have chronological or behavioural connotations that still need to be addressed. In situations where the emphasis lies on the functional edge only, this functions largely independently of the exact typology or even technology. This means that tools used for the same task may have similar functional edge morphologies, while their morphology as a whole (i.e., the complete stone tool) may vary significantly, thus cross-cutting different typological categories. When emphasis is more on the morphology of the stone tool as a whole, this implies that there is more balance between the morphology of the functional edge and the remainder of the stone tool and morphologies may appear more standardised. More systematic integration of use and hafting issues with technological studies in future research will provide data to address such issues, which may shed more light on assemblage variability.

10.2

EXAMINING PREHENSILE WEAR IN PRACTICE

To increase the integration of the results into current functional studies and their applicability for archaeological case studies, a practical oriented procedure is proposed. The main issues, relevant for an interpretation, are summarised. The proposed five-step procedure assumes terminal hafting (including latero-distal hafts), i.e. scrapers, burins, etc., but it obviously goes for other hafting arrangements as well. A series of key tables was presented throughout these chapters listing several distinctive traits which allow an identification of the prehensile mode or hafting arrangement. These tables should be used when examining prehensile wear. References to them are included below. 10.2.1 First step: Choice of appropriate method A first issue is obviously the choice of an adequate method for addressing the research problem in mind. When one is experienced, a macroscopic analysis may be appropriate for a first (fast) identification of hafted tools within an assemblage. However, it is not suitable for interpretations concerning the exact hafting arrangement used, and sufficient experience with hafting wear is a prerequisite. Low power and high power analyses differ both in the required analytical time and the type of results that can be expected. Hafting arrangements are often interpretable with low power; hafting materials are not, aside from perhaps their relative hardness. High power analysis is more time-consuming, but it allows for more accurate hafting material identifications. Choosing between the two depends on the raw material, the available equipment, the size of the tool sample to be analysed, the questions to be addressed, and the detail required. The most suitable procedure is one which combines the two approaches, as both have their advantages. In my opinion, the most successful procedure is gradual in nature: it starts from lower magnifications on a larger tool sample up to high magnification on a smaller tool sample. This seems to combine the best of both worlds: sufficiently large samples and sufficient detail for a selection of tools. 10.2.2 Second step: Relevant initial observations At the start of the analysis, a general macroscopic examination may provide a first insight into the assemblage. 10.2.2.1 Preservation quality The preservation quality of the archaeological material is an important feature which needs to be evaluated beforehand. The presence of a macroscopically visible alteration or patination reduces the chances of relying on polish for reliable hafting inferences. Scarring gains in importance as long as it is not post-depositional in nature (on altered pieces this is easy to verify). One should nevertheless always attempt to rely on a combination of different trace types. Even when an assemblage may appear well-preserved macroscopically, a microscopic examination may prove otherwise. The occurrence of bright spots in a random distribution all over the tool (in association with alteration polish, rounding, etc.) is

DISCUSSION

important, as this rules bright spots out from being used as potential hafting evidence. Next to possible alteration polishes, it needs to be evaluated whether tools were damaged by post-depositional or excavation-related processes. When alterations prove to be absent or minimal, a further analysis of hafting wear can take place without any problem. Wellpreserved assemblages are always preferable. When alterations occur, the certainty level of interpretations decreases and care should be taken with certain trace types, such as polish and bright spots. Generally, tools with obvious hafting wear (see chapters 5 and 6) may still be identifiable. 10.2.2.2 Raw material coarseness Traces are slightly less obvious on coarse-grained flints (see chapter 7). Macroscopic glosses tend to be rare, polishes tend to be somewhat less developed, bright spots tend to be more restricted in number, and scarring tends to be somewhat more abrupt in termination. Certainty levels may be slightly lower on a macroscopic and perhaps also on a low power level. 10.2.2.3 Retouch Retouch is an important feature to take into account (e.g. chapter 7): it reduces the possibilities of straightforward interpretations on hafting, in particular on a macroscopic level, as it limits the chance of scarring. Coarse retouch is the greatest problem, while limited or fine retouch should not cause problems. Use scars are not to be confused with retouch (see chapter 3). Generally speaking, retouch tends to be more regular and the scars show a clear initiation, often with crushing round the initiation point, etc. 10.2.2.4 Morphology While some morphological features may influence trace distribution or the location of trace concentrations (see chapter 7), other features may be suggestive of hafting (e.g., tangs, notches) (Rots 2002c; 2005). Transverse convexity is particularly important for the location of the best-developed polishes. Ridges should be examined at their “flattest” side first as the best-developed traces are expected there. Longitudinal curvature determines the ease of hafting and the need to remove the bulb of percussion. Male arrangements are less flexible as far as stone tool morphology is concerned than juxtaposed arrangements. Considerable longitudinal curves may limit the contact surface between tool and haft and determine the location of trace concentrations. The presence of tangs, notches, etc. does not prove that tools were used hafted, but it may be suggestive of the hafting arrangement once indubitable hafting wear is observed. 10.2.2.5 Fractures All fractures may contain relevant information with regard to hafting (see chapter 8). Hafted tools fracture more easily than hand-held ones. In order to evaluate whether a fracture is hafting-related, its location, initiation, termination and potential associated scarring need to be examined. Intense associated scarring is, for instance, indicative of a hafting cause.

199

10.2.3 Third step: Tool use Tool use is a dominant variable in the formation of hafting traces (see chapter 5). Therefore, it is essential that tool use is known so that reliable hafting inferences can be made. 1. Used tool portion The typological working edge as well as every other potentially functional working edge have to be examined for macro-/microscopic use evidence, like scarring, polish, rounding of the outer edge, etc. The occurrence of more than one used portion is important in view of hafting. Identification of the used portion allows one to assess approximately where a potential haft should be located. 2. Distribution of use-wear traces, i.e. centralised or not A microscopic examination is most appropriate for adequately evaluating the use-wear distribution. A centralised use-wear distribution is indicative of hafting even though it needs to be combined with the actual observation of hafting traces (see chapter 8). A de-centralised use-wear distribution may be the result of either hand-held or hafted use, but it allows the exclusion of some hafting arrangements (e.g., lateral hafting, cf. exp. 20/7). 3. Material worked and use motion (if possible) Magnification is required for the adequate evaluation of the exact material being worked and use motion. The material worked is important for evaluating what kind of traces to expect in the case of hand-held use: processing schist or bone/antler may potentially result in well-developed prehension polish. Some use motions rule out hand-held use (e.g., adzing). The combination of material worked and use motion gives one an idea about the hafting trace intensity and the general hafting trace pattern (see fig. 5.58) to expect in the case of hafted use. Knowledge of the exact tool use may also allow the exclusion of certain hafting arrangements or tool positions. 4. Relative use duration (if possible) An assessment of the minimum period of use allows an evaluation of the trace development to be expected for prehension or hafting wear. Only the period of the last use cycle can be evaluated on the basis of use-wear, given that resharpening removes the traces. 10.2.4 Fourth step: Hafted or not? The most important argument for distinguishing between hafted and hand-held tools is the occurrence of some kind of limit in the trace pattern, which forms only on hafted tools and which can consist of a number of traces (see fig. 3.23): – A suddenly differing polish distribution, extension, and/ or morphology. In contrast to use-wear polish, hafting polish generally lacks a real impact on the edge. – The abrupt start of marked scarring or of a different kind of scarring. The scarring round the haft limit is often more intense and larger than on the remaining hafted edges. It is generally uneven in size and it may form a patch.

200

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

– The (sudden) occurrence of bright spots and/or striations. – The association of scarring and bright spots, or scarring and striations. These kinds of associations provide a strong argument for hafting. A limit which is observable on a macroscopic level is just as valid as one identified on a microscopic level, but the argument gains in strength if it is confirmed on different levels. An increase in magnification allows the observation of more traces, but there is a loss in overview, which should not be overlooked, given the importance of patterns for hafting. Low power analysis is therefore often very suitable for identifying potential haft limits. A number of additional traits which permit the drawing of a distinction between hand-held and hafted tools were listed in fig. 3.23. Fifth step: Which hafting arrangement was used? Good macroscopic data for the determination of the hafting arrangement are rare, and one should rely on microscopic data (low or high power). The most reliable procedure is one which combines all three methods in order to compensate for the deficiencies of one particular method (e.g., loss of overview – high power). Only general data are included here. Interpretations should be based on the conclusive tables (“distinctive traits”) provided in chapter 6 at the end of each section. The haft type is interpreted based on a comparison between the traces on the dorsal face and those on the ventral face, between the traces in the centre of the tool and those on the edges (see fig. 6.79). If traces (polish morphology and scarring intensity in particular) differ between the two faces, a juxtaposed haft is most likely. If traces are similar, a male-type arrangement is more likely. If there is no real impact on the edges, and if the traces on the edges differ from what is observed in the centre of the tool (e.g., ridges), a male split arrangement is most likely. When traces on the ridges are not well developed, a distinction between a juxtaposed and male split haft may be hampered (see chapter 9). For a distinction, one needs to focus on the polish intrusion in comparison with tool morphology. When polish intrudes into lower zones, contact with a binding material seems the best option given its softer nature. The tool placement, direction and the orientation of the active part can be discerned on the basis of the location of the used portion and the exact location of use-wear traces. Hafting traces are of secondary importance. The haft material is more difficult to discern, given that dry wood is used for hafting and that it does not differ much in hardness from bone and antler. Nevertheless, distinctive elements relate to differences in polish morphology and extension and in some scar characteristics (see fig. 6.35): given its harder nature, antler results in less intrusive polish and more abrupt scarring than wood. The use of bindings is inferred on the basis of the occurrence of very typical scars which were grouped under the category “binding scars”: sliced and sliced into scalar scars in the main, with a curved or bent initiation (see fig. 6.79). A few causes must be excluded beforehand if these scars are to be used as evidence: (1) on a general morphological level,

use and prehension may lead to similar scars, but these differ in location and distribution, etc.; (2) male-hafted tools (direct contact) used in rotation may show similar scarring on the hafted edges which is not linked to the use of bindings. Next to scarring evidence, polish characteristics may also be used; polish is particularly useful for distinguishing between different binding materials (see fig. 6.47). A wrapping reduces the amount of friction and thus also the trace intensity (see fig. 6.88). Resin may prevent all trace formation, although some very typical and distinct resin polish spots may form (see fig. 6.102). Finally, attention should be paid to the potential impact of the protrusion of the tool’s edges from the haft. When a stone tool is smaller than its haft, less scarring will form than when the edges protrude.

10.2.5

10.3

TRAITS IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN ANY WEAR RECORDING SYSTEM

The system used for recording hafting traces is very much focussed on hafting traces and their internal variability (see annex I). It is not designed for the recording of other traces, like traces from use, knapping etc., although this is theoretically possible. An analyst can of course not work with different recording systems at the same time. This implies that the most characteristic elements of each trace cause should be included in every recording system. Most microwear analysts have a recording system of their own, so it is definitely not the intention to impose yet another system on them. On the contrary, trace attributes relevant for examining hafting are listed, and it is hoped that this will allow their straightforward inclusion in any recording system. My recording system is based on the concepts proposed by Vaughan and Plisson (Vaughan and Plisson 1986) (see annex I), so the inclusion of hafting trace attributes in systems derived from that one should be fairly straightforward. Obviously, details should be recorded concerning the exact location of each trace, and the presence / absence of a clear limit or the restriction of traces to a specific tool part. Ideally, there is spatial opposition between traces attributed to use (e.g., distal) and those attributed to hafting (e.g., proximal). For archaeological tools, more complex distributions should be recordable as well (e.g., turning in the haft). 10.3.1 Polish Hafting polish distinguishes itself from other polishes mainly in distribution and extension, while its morphology does not really differ from what is known for use-wear polish. As regards distribution, the lack of an impact on the edge contrasts with use-wear polish, and as regards extension, one should be able to specify whether the polish follows the microtopography. Extensions limited to the outer edge or present on the outer edge and inner surface are probably included in most recording systems. Attributes like polish linkage are also expected in most recording systems. Next, it is important to note whether other traces

DISCUSSION

are associated with polish, like scarring, bright spots, etc., or morphological attributes (e.g., polish occurs on protrusion only). As regards the cause of polish, it is important to include the different hafting-related causes. Hafting should also be distinguished from prehension. The addition of these interpretative attributes goes for all traces, also for scarring, bright spots, etc. The inclusion of the certainly level of the interpretation also seems to be indispensable for all recorded traces. 10.3.2 Scarring In many systems, scarring is not recorded in detail (although this may have changed). Yet, it could be established that scarring is very significant for hafting. Apart from the “traditional” scar morphologies, references to some special scar morphologies are proposed (e.g., “sliced into scalar” scars). The scar initiation also proved significant. No special scar terminations were included other than standard ones: snap, feather, hinge and step terminations. The ability to record that the scars superpose is useful. Scar sizes and depths have a less marked effect, given the ordinal scales. Scar definition also has a less notable effect, but scar intrusiveness is important. While attributes concerning the more general scar distribution category are probably included in other recording systems, the more detailed attributes concerning the exact patterning probably are not and should therefore be added. The “large scars with smaller scars / crushing at initiation” category is particularly important for haft contact, especially for male arrangements. The same goes for the formation of a clear intrusion or notch. The skewed saw

201

patterns and the specific location of the large scars within a patch seem more important for bindings. 10.3.3 Bright spots Bright spots were probably not frequently included in recording systems, other than those relating to alterations or preservation issues. All attributes should thus be added, in particular those concerning their location, number and size, and their association with other trace types. 10.3.4 Striations Striations did not prove very characteristic of hafting, and the most important attributes – like orientation – are no doubt included in most recording systems. 10.3.5 Rounding Given that rounding is far more important for use-wear traces than for hafting traces, its recording is probably sufficiently detailed in most recording systems, if it is recorded as an individual value and not as an aspect of use polish. 10.3.6 Conclusion The addition of prehension and hafting-related trace attributes to a recording system should allow an adequate interpretation of prehensile wear. The trace’s cause should always be recordable in a straightforward way. After all, a well-balanced recording system allows the recording of all traces, even those relating to technological aspects, which is a precondition for the drawing of reliable inferences and which allows the interpretation of a tool as a whole.

11. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

While prehistoric stone tool hafting has been considered important for decades, in terms of both technological and cognitive evolutions, it has been hard to design methods which allow detailed insight into the introduction of hafting and its evolution through time. The main reason is that handles were manufactured from organic materials and these are only rarely preserved. The issue thus largely escapes us, but as finds become more and more numerous, promising new techniques have also been developed and these last couple of years have shown some progress in the matter. The choice whether or not to haft a stone tool depends on various factors, the most prominent among which is knowledge regarding hafting. The choice of a particular hafting arrangement may also be guided by various factors, while the arrangements themselves may vary significantly in ease and complexity. They may have been rather straightforward at times, but increasing expertise no doubt allowed complex arrangements as well as very flexible or opportunistic ones. Hafting traces form one of the more obscure issues in microwear research. While they were considered important and were frequently referred to, doubts reigned concerning the ability to interpret hafted tools on the basis of lithics, and hafts were thought to be situated somewhere beyond the limits of archaeological inference. It was generally assumed that the rare occasions on which a hafted tool is recovered thanks to ideal burial conditions (e.g., in lakes) form the only window to it. The prevailing attitude was one of resignation and attempts at hafting interpretations were looked upon with a certain reticence. There is no need to emphasise that the first attempts to interpret usewear traces had a similar effect. Yet, the principle on which use-wear research is based is simple: friction between two mediums results in traces on both mediums. Logically, the friction within a hafting arrangement is equally real and can result in traces. The frequent observation of traces away from the active edge and the interpretation of experimental hafting traces as traces of use in blind tests confirm that this assumption is not mere speculation. Thus, the problem is situated not on the level of their formation, but on the level of their interpretation. One did not know how to interpret hafting traces since one did not know what to look for and what the importance of a particular observation was. A sound reference was lacking and observation simply does not equal interpretation. Interpretation requires a body of theory to establish a clear link between a present observation (static fact) and a past cause (past dynamics). This was the purpose of this research: to provide that reference, that theory which allows one not merely to observe traces, but also to interpret them as a result of prehension

or hafting. Functional investigations have the considerable advantage of the possibility of extensive experimentation, which allows one to develop a theory. The experiments left no question about the fact that prehension and hafting traces form. Two moments of hafting trace formation were identified: during the hafting process itself and during subsequent use, the second stage obviously being the more important one. Five categories of traces proved relevant: polish, scarring, rounding, striations and bright spots. While four of these are traditionally considered in use-wear investigations, bright spots are often thought to be the result of post-depositional processes only. Though some of them certainly are, there is no doubt about the hafting origin of others (Rots 2002b). Organised distribution (i.e., restriction to a particular tool portion) and association with scarring form the most distinctive criteria. The association of bright spots and scarring is in itself a very reliable and conclusive argument for hafting. Next to bright spots, polish and scarring are the most significant hafting traces. This contrasts with use-wear traces, in which rounding and striations play a more important role. In addition, use-wear polish is characterised by a considerable impact on the edge, a directional aspect and gradual intrusion into the inner surface, which is not true of hafting polish. Hafting polish tends to follow the microtopography, there is no real impact on the edge (or a very limited one) and no directional aspect. Hafting traces are different not only from use-wear traces; they also proved to differ from production and transport traces. More importantly, they differ significantly from other prehensile wear. The most distinctive feature of hafting with regard to prehension is the ability to identify a trace limit. The considerable friction in that zone results in marked traces. A limit can be identified on the basis of the sudden start of scarring or the start of a different kind of scarring, this in frequent association with bright spots (or striations). Also the sudden start of a totally different polish is a valid criterion. However, an inferred limit becomes a true limit only when it can be confirmed on other edges. In the case of a terminal hafting, one should be able to locate the haft limit on both lateral edges, preferably on the dorsal and ventral face, although the limit is not necessarily equally obvious on all edges. In this light, ridges are less significant. In the case of prehension, there is no limit and traces continue for a long way towards the working edge. In addition, the trace pattern on the two lateral edges differs and there is no association of scarring and bright spots, or of scarring and striations. Finally, prehension polish is determined by the tool’s use as it is caused by detached particles of the material being worked. Consequently, there is always a relationship between the prehension and use polish, which is not true for hafting.

204

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Once it was established that the formation process of hafting (and prehension) traces was recurrent, the internal variability of hafting traces could be examined. Four variables proved to have a predominant influence. The hafting arrangement is the most important variable, and it determines the positioning of the traces over the hafted part and some of the trace characteristics (e.g., binding scars). In general, the use of a male arrangement results in the same kind of wear over the whole of the hafted part, a juxtaposed arrangement in a different pattern on the dorsal as against the ventral face, and a male split arrangement in a different wear pattern between the centre of the tool and the edges (irrespective of the face). In addition, a male arrangement (i.e., with handle) is the only one with a considerable impact on the edge and thus intense scarring. The other two arrangements are those on which binding scars can be expected. The hafting material determines the morphology of the traces and polish proved to be the most important criterion, while scarring can be used as supporting evidence. Tool use was also classified among the dominant variables, but its influence is less marked. The use motion determines the trace pattern, i.e. the trace distribution between the medial and proximal zones. This does not interfere with the impact identified for the hafting arrangement. Such arrangement has a predominant impact on the wear pattern between the dorsal and ventral faces and not on the distribution over one face only. Finally, the material worked determines the intensity of hafting traces. The harder or more resistant the material being worked the better developed the hafting traces, but this is, of course, within the limits set by the hafting arrangement itself. Some arrangements result in more and better-developed traces than others. Other variables need to be taken into account as well. Raw material coarseness has a minor influence on trace intensity (and visibility): the coarser the raw material, the slower the formation of hafting traces. Retouch complicates the identification of scarring and may reduce the interpretability of the hafting trace pattern, in particular on a macroscopic level. It also counteracts the impact of stone tool protrusion from the haft. If a tool protrudes, scarring is more intense. Stone tool morphology should not be neglected either, especially longitudinal curvature and transverse convexity. The more pronounced the longitudinal curvature the more difficult it is to insert the tool into a haft, in particular in a male haft. That often necessitates the removal of the bulb. This was nicely illustrated for the end-scrapers of the Magdalenian site of Verberie (France) (Rots 2005): the bulb was systematically removed on all scrapers with pronounced longitudinal curves. This can obviously be linked with the hafting arrangement used: a male direct hafting in bone (predominantly). Transverse convexity mainly determines where one finds the bestdeveloped traces. In the case of a triangular cross-section, hafting traces are commonly restricted to the outer ridge. In the case of a trapezoidal cross-section, traces intrude more into the inner surface. In such cases, the best-developed

traces can be observed on the “flattest” side of the ridge, i.e. generally towards the centre, given the higher chance of close contact with the hafting material. The wear pattern in the most proximal zone is largely determined by the butt and bulb characteristics. The side on which the butt protrudes has the highest chance of being damaged. In turn, a crushed butt is significant for the tool’s use. The bulb thickness determines the contact surface with a potential haft, and thus the overall trace distribution on the ventral face. The presence of scars and ridges has no influence on the overall hafting trace distribution, but it does result in a concentration on prominent points. This may be important for the identification of the contact material where a knapping origin can be ruled out (i.e., friction with the core upon detachment). Lastly, the fact that a tool was used hafted has an influence on the formation of use-wear traces, in particular their distribution over the used edge, and on the occurrence and characteristics of fractures. Both aspects may indirectly suggest hafting. The impact on use-wear formation is limited, but a centralised distribution (e.g., for scrapers) occurs in the case of hafted use only. No such use-wear distribution was recorded on any of the experimental hand-held tools. The same counts for wrapped tools, since the way in which these are held during use does not really differ from handheld tools. This implies that use-wear traces permit only a partial insight into the prehensile mode of a tool. There is, however, another indirect argument for use-wear which is most explicit on an archaeological level. Hand-held use is far more flexible and allows the tool to be turned round in the hand according to the needs of the task at hand. Thus, several use zones should not be surprising, although they are not a necessity. If a hafted tool is used for more than one session – but for the same task – the tool is turned round in the handle, implying that working edges oppose each other. The distribution of working edges over the tool can thus be indicative of the prehensile mode of the tool. The second indirect argument for hafting consists of fractures. First of all, fractures are more frequent in the case of hafted use (i.e., with handle). This is a result of the higher pressure that can be exerted and the stress against the edge of the haft. After all, during hafted use, the zone round the haft limit functions as a kind of lever, and it is submitted to large amounts of stress, fractures being the result. Hafting fractures can be distinguished from other fractures on the basis of their association with intense scarring. This scarring is not universal, but it is very frequent. Complex terminations are also fairly typical of hafting fractures. However, no one set of criteria can be proposed since the fracture characteristics also depend on the location of the fracture with regard to the haft. Fractures at the haft limit have slightly differing characteristics from those which occur within the haft. The latter are, for instance, often associated with intense crushing. While the above characteristics and variables allow the interpretation of hafting traces, a second and equally important step in this research consisted of the evaluation of the potential of different analytical methods. Three

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

approaches were considered: macroscopic, low power and high power. The macroscopic approach proved remarkably powerful (if the analyst is experienced). This can largely be attributed to the importance of trace patterns for hafting, which increases the interpretative potential of a macroscopic analysis in comparison to, for instance, use-wear traces, at least for the recognition of hafted tools. For inferences concerning the hafting arrangement, this method proved less successful. In part, its success rate depends on the hafting arrangement used. Some arrangements simply lead to more extensive wear than others. The more wear the more reliable the macroscopic interpretation. In practice this implies that male direct hafted tools are most recognisable on a macroscopic level. If one looks at the whole of an archaeological assemblage, a macroscopic analysis is in my opinion a very appropriate procedure for drawing a preliminary distinction between tools which were “probably used in the hand”, “probably used hafted”, “quite certainly used hafted”, and “uncertain” ones. On a macroscopic level, the uncertain category will generally be the largest one, but this may vary depending on the assemblage. The main problem is presented by artefacts which lack macroscopic wear. One can never be certain about the reason for this absence without a microscopic confirmation. This also explains why a category entitled “certainly hand-held” was not proposed, given that hand-held use rarely results in traces that are absolutely certain on a macroscopic level. An additional microscopic analysis greatly increases the certainty of macroscopic interpretations, even if the analysis remains very limited. A simple search for an association between scars and bright spots and observation of the general bright spot distribution (i.e., restricted to a particular tool part opposite the working edge and thus related to hafting) can often be sufficient. Low power analysis has the major advantage that one maintains a very good overview despite the magnification. Given the significance of spatial patterns and trace associations for hafting, this trait is very important. It allows one continuously to observe the relationship between a particular trace and the whole tool (e.g., morphology), and to extrapolate a potentially significant pattern. Although the observation of polish is hampered, scarring can be observed in ideal circumstances. Given that scarring and polish are of equal importance with regard to hafting (sometimes scarring is even more important), low power analysis provides a fairly good resolution. Haft limit identifications, and in many cases inferences concerning the hafting arrangement, are possible. Consider, for instance, the close relationship between certain scar morphologies and the use of bindings. As with a macroscopic analysis, an arrangement in which a male handle is used is easily interpretable with low power. The main shortcomings concern the interpretation of the hafting material. While one can infer the relative hardness – as in the case of use-wear traces – further determinations are not possible. However, the interpretation of the relative hardness does not really differ much from the interpretation of the hafting arrangement. After all, there are only a limited number of options, i.e. combinations: a

205

hard material only (male handle), a hard and soft material (juxtaposed and male split), and only a soft material (wrapping). While such interpretations are generally possible, the exact haft material cannot be identified (e.g., wood versus antler). Consequently, a low power analysis has clear limits which should be respected, although the level of confidence with which inferences can be made has definitely increased in comparison to that for a macroscopic analysis. The possibilities and limitations of high power analysis are situated on a different level. The main drawback of this method concerns the loss of overview due to increased magnification. This can seriously hamper identification of the hafting arrangement. In contrast, there is a great advantage for material identifications. Polish forms an important criterion for which a high power analysis is most adequate. Although hafting polish is not always well developed, an interpretation can be proposed if one combines all arguments. The main problem is the distinction between wood and antler, as evidenced by blind tests. However, it is believed that distinctions are easier on an archaeological level, as traces often proved to be well developed and interpretations proved more straightforward. The main problems are caused by short periods of use. The confidence level of high power interpretations is significantly higher compared to that in a macroscopic analysis. To conclude, no single method achieves the final outcome. Each method has a certain potential for the interpretation of hafting traces, but each also has its limits. In fact, none proved so powerful that all others could be discarded, and the most effective research should combine all three of them. It is the only way in which the disadvantages of one method can be compensated for by other methods, and it provides the best and most reliable interpretations. Unfortunately, a combined approach is also the most intensive one. It demands a large investment in time, and such an investment cannot always be made. In such cases, one should opt for the method which is most appropriate to answer the research question in mind. If one wants to have only a general (first) impression about the occurrence and importance of hafted tools on a site, a macroscopic analysis may be sufficient (depending on the assemblage). One should, however, be aware that a macroscopic analysis does not allow reliable interpretations, and that interpretations of the hafting arrangement are not possible (only rarely and on the condition that one has experience with hafting). One should therefore not pretend that the derived interpretations have the highest reliability that can be obtained. This investigation does not end with the proposition of this methodology. It is only a first step and elaboration and application should form the basis of further research. On an experimental level, tool samples per examined variable need to be elaborated upon and variables which have not yet been examined need further exploration. It would be useful to pay attention to tool efficiency even though the idea of “efficiency” is a relative one. Nevertheless, one can, for instance, examine the importance of haft weight and haft design for the tool’s functionality. Ethnographic data are very important in this light. A detailed investigation of the

206

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

characteristics of ethnographic hafted tools and the reasons behind certain choices can prove very useful in a further exploration of archaeological tool designs. Also an extension to raw materials other than flint can greatly increase the applicability of the method. A first step was taken in an elaboration towards quartz (Rots and Van Peer 2006). Projectiles also deserve further attention. Explorative analyses of ethnographic tools were undertaken and confirmation of experimental trace patterns and associations was obtained (Rots and Williamson 2004; Beyries and Rots 2008), but this research angle should be further developed in depth. Ethnographic case studies allow for a control of all variables, including know-how, and they provide the best type of experiment conceivable. Stone tool use in an ethnographic context offers a major opportunity to compare experimental trace patterns with those on ethnographic hafted tools and to examine decisions regarding hafting closely. The fact that stone tools are used within a systemic context, in which they play a fundamental role, allows insight into the more dynamic aspects of stone tool use to be gained. The large-scale application of this methodology to archaeological assemblages is obviously a long-term goal of this type of research. Several results on archaeological assemblages have already been published (Rots 2002c; Rots

et al. 2003; Rots 2005; Rots et al. 2005; Rots and Van Peer 2006; Rots 2009), and they clearly demonstrate the importance of the further continuation and integration of hafting wear in functional studies and in prehistoric research as a whole. In addition, attention should be devoted to the investigation of preserved hafted tools. These form an ideal test. The macro- and microscopic trace patterns can be examined and be compared with the actual preserved arrangement. This is a major advantage in comparison to use-wear traces for which the tool needs to be preserved in the material worked to allow similar inferences to be drawn. While the investigation of preserved hafted tools forms an explorative test of the experimental model, it can also be used in a blind test. After all, such a test does not suffer from any of the constraints of an experimental blind test. It is a perfect way to test the validity of inferences. To conclude, it is believed that the designed method allows for the recognition and interpretation of hafting traces on archaeological artefacts and that application of this method contributes to a better understanding of stone tool morphologies, assemblage variability, and archaeological patterning. It is essential that future functional investigations include hafting traces, and it is hoped that the method designed here proves useful in doing so and that it encourages analysts to take up the challenge.

ANNEX I: TRACE ATTRIBUTES

ABBREVIATIONS USED Exp.:

experimental tool

Trace location in tables on CD-rom and in table extractions in text dpedge: dorsal proximal edge dmedge: dorsal medial edge ddedge: dorsal distal edge dpsurf: dorsal proximal surface dmsurf: dorsal medial surface ddsurf: dorsal distal surface dpridge: dorsal proximal ridge dmridge: dorsal medial ridge ddridge: dorsal distal ridge dpbutt: dorsal proximal butt butt: butt

vpedge: vmedge: vdedge: vpsurf: vmsurf: vdsurf: vpbulb: vpbutt:

ventral proximal edge ventral medial edge ventral distal edge ventral proximal surface ventral medial surface ventral distal surface ventral proximal bulb ventral proximal butt

dpredge: dpledge: etc.

dorsal proximal right edge dorsal proximal left edge

208

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

POLISH (P)

A B C D E 1 2 3 4 F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 G 1 2 3 4 5

6

EDGE ROUNDING (ER) Number of piece (Tool ID) Trace number (Trace ID) Localisation on piece (Localisation) Specific localisation (Loc. Specif.) Low power intensity

Distribution spots discontinuous continuous linear trace patch patches

Morphology unidentifiable minute spots smooth rough pitted domed

8 9 H 1 2

“troughs”, “crests” = gentle undulations “melted snow” = undulating flat grooved Brightness dull intermediate

3 4

bright very bright

7

5 6 7 I 1 2 3 4 5 6

Development poor moderate very bright extensive

EDGE SCARRING (ED)

STRIATIONS (S)

Intensity light moderate heavy important Morphology scalar trapezoidal triangular rectangular irregular sliced (half-moon shaped removal) nibbling retouch edge crushing divers Morphological details balloon-type scalar scars elongated scars oblique scars sliced into scalar mixed scalar & triangular: narrow into wide (usually deep & hinge) abraded crushing

Low power intensity

Initiation diffuse (wide) clear impact point (narrow) dip straight into curve (on opposite face) curve twisted / bent

Characteristics rough bottom smooth bottom

“troughs”, “crests” = gentle undulations “melted snow” = undulating flat grooved Brightness dull intermediate

filled-in grooved

bright very bright

Termination snap feather hinge step vertical

Number one few moderate many

BRIGHT SPOTS (BS)

one few moderate many small medium large

Morphology straight curved divers regular edges (“ruban”)

irregular edges (“fougère”)

striation-like polish additive abrasive Width narrow medium large (> 10μm)

unidentifiable minute spots smooth rough pitted domed

Development poor moderate very bright extensive

ANNEX I: TRACE ATTRIBUTES

POLISH (P)

EDGE ROUNDING (ER)

7 J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L 0 1 2 3 4 41 42 43 5 51 52 53 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 M 1

Degree of polish linkage low ~spots moderate ~higher parts high ~higher & lower parts (differential) complete ~higher & lower (similar)

EDGE SCARRING (ED) superposition any combination Size

STRIATIONS (S)

BRIGHT SPOTS (BS)

Intrusiveness

small (< 0,5mm) medium (0,5 < >1 mm) large (1< > 2 mm)

superficial deep

Degree of polish linkage low ~spots moderate ~higher parts

abrasive additive

high ~higher & lower parts (differential) complete ~higher & lower (similar)

very large (> 2 mm) flat – superficial moderate deep

Type

Definition of scar along rear border ill-defined medium-defined well-defined

short medium long interrupted Orientiation to border (tool edges) parallel oblique perpendicular divers

Type abrasive additive

flat - intrusive moderate abrupt (vertical) combination Extension

only border / ridge: low presence ~ thin line along edge only border / ridge: moderate presence only border / ridge: extensive presence ~ band along edge border and inner surface: differential presence low moderate extensive border and inner surface: similar presence ~ irregular (not “band”) along edge low moderate extensive border and inner surface: extensive presence only surface: low presence only surface: moderate presence only surface: extensive presence

209

Distribution along edge one even and run-together even and wide uneven and runtogether uneven and wide

alternating

bifacial continuous distinct patches distinct patches, wider distribution in between

follows microtopography: low presence follows microtopography: moderate presence follows microtopography: high presence

combination Extension

only border / ridge: low presence ~ thin line along edge only border / ridge: moderate presence only border / ridge: extensive presence ~ band along edge border and inner surface: differential presence low moderate extensive border and inner surface: similar presence ~ irregular (not “band”) along edge low moderate extensive border and inner surface: extensive presence only surface: low presence only surface: moderate presence only surface: extensive presence follows microtopography: low presence follows microtopography: moderate presence follows microtopography: high presence

Pattern details termination at welldefined line close to edge

210

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

POLISH (P)

EDGE ROUNDING (ER)

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9 N 1 2 3 4 O 1 2 3 4 5 P 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q 0 10 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 24

Association polish rounding edge scarring striations bright spots any combination Edge morphology in trace zone wide area / ND protruding / projecting / prominent zone intruding zone / depression convex edge straight edge concave edge ridge concave surface flat surface convex surface any combination Interpretation: material responsible ND mineral hard stone soft stone shell vegetal matter non-woody plants soft non-woody plants hard non-woody plants wood

EDGE SCARRING (ED) termination at more or less same line large scars with smaller ones at their initiation large scars with crushing at initiation skewed saw pattern (D |\|\|\ P) inverse skewed saw pattern (D /|/|/| P) scars form clear intrusion / notch (macro) largest scars in centre of patch largest scars at extremities of patch Material responsible - relative hardness soft medium-soft medium-hard hard

STRIATIONS (S)

BRIGHT SPOTS (BS)

ANNEX I: TRACE ATTRIBUTES

POLISH (P)

30 31 32 38 40 41 42 50 51 70 71 72 73 80 81 82 90 91 92 93 94 R 0 10 13 14 15 20 21 22 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 45 50 52 60 61 62 70 71

EDGE ROUNDING EDGE SCARRING STRIATIONS (S) (ER) (ED) soft animal matter (meat, hide, tendons) meat/tendons hide finger prehension hard animal matter (bone, antler, etc.) bone antler/ivory carcass (bone + meat + skin) fish unspecified material soft material medium material hard material remains of hafting substance mastic bitumen unidentifiable contact material undiagnostic polish unfamiliar polish polish too abraded polish too alterated Interpretation: cause unknown undefined friction friction due to fracture friction of toolparts in haft friction with hafting substance knapping retouch anvil contact fracture fracture due to friction fracture due to knapping fracture due to retouch fracture in haft fracture during de-hafting fracture due to use fracture due to external cause fracture due to prehension hafting undefined friction against the tool while hafted (generally on protruding edges) insertion of worked material particles in haft de-hafting prehension prehension during retouch, etc. use friction of flint particles due to use friction with worked material particles without direct contact undefined non-active and not hafted transport (prehistoric)

BRIGHT SPOTS (BS)

211

212

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

POLISH (P)

EDGE ROUNDING (ER)

72 73 74 75

trampling post-depositional handling (excavation) – storage sheath wear

8 9 S 0 1 2 T 0 1 2 3 4

for general table (inventor): not relevant or none existent impossible analysis Influence of edge morphology no yes not defined Interpretability no yes, low certainty yes, moderate certainty yes, high certainty yes, certain

EDGE SCARRING (ED)

STRIATIONS (S)

BRIGHT SPOTS (BS)

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS

LEGEND ID: identification number of the stone tool Haft Nr.: identification number of the haft HT: haft type M: male hafting; MS: male split hafting; J: juxtaposed hafting HM: hafting method D: direct hafting; I: indirect hafting TP: tool placement T: terminal tool placement; L: lateral tool placement; LD: latero-distal tool placement TD: tool direction Tr: transverse tool direction; A: axial tool direction AP: orientation of the active part Pe: perpendicular orientation of the active part; Pa: parallel orientation of the active part; Ob: oblique orientation of the active part Haft Mat.: haft material (see annex I) 20: lime tree bark; 24: wood; 32: leather; 41: bone; 42: antler; 80: resin Haft material specifics: specific details concerning the haft material H Morph.: handle morphology Wr: wrapping material (see annex I) 20: vegetal matter (i.e. lime tree bark); 32: leather Wrapping Specifics: specific details concerning the wrapping material Bin: binding material (see annex I) 20: vegetal matter (i.e. lime tree bark); 31: tendons; 32: leather Binding specifics: specific details concerning the binding material

B Dir.: direction in which the bindings are fixed 1: dorsal right edge to ventral right edge; 2: ventral right edge to dorsal right edge Fix: fixation material (see annex I) 20: vegetal matter; 80: resin Fixation specifics: specific details concerning the fixation material Haft Contact: face of the tool in contact with the haft (ventral, dorsal, both) Hafted Part: part of the tool that is hafted (proximal, medial, distal, lateral right/left) Activity: the use motion undertaken during use H:min:sec: use duration expressed in hours, minutes, and seconds Rel.Dur.: relative duration expressed in four categories 1: ≤ 00:10:00 min; 2: 00:10:01 – 00:29:59 min; 3: 00:30:00 – 00:59:59 min; 4: ≥ 1:00:00 min Material worked (see annex I) 10: mineral material; 20: vegetal matter; 24: wood; 32: hide; 41: bone; 42: antler. Worked material specifics: specific details concerning the material worked Tooltype: general typological classification of the tool in question Grain size: grain size of the lithic raw material Exp.r: Experimenter 1: V. Rots; 2: L. Pirnay; 3: J. Speckens; 4: L. Baumans; 5: D. Cocchi; 6: P. Pirson; 7: O. Baudoux; 8: C. Casseyas; 9: T. Cardon; 10: L. Bodson; 11: J.-P. Caspar; 12: C. Massin; 13: A. Geerts; 90: occasional experimenter; 99: several.

Haft Nr. 1/1 1/2 1/11 1/ 1/5

1/6

1/6

1/9

11

1/12

2/1

2/1

1 3 10 11

4

4/1

4/2

4/3

6

5

6

1/11

Exp. 1/1 Exp. 1/2 Exp. 1/3 Exp. 1/4 Exp. 1/5

Exp. 1/6

Exp. 1/7

Exp. 1/9

Exp. 1/10

Exp. 1/11

Exp. 2/7

Exp. 2/20

Exp. 4/1 Exp. 4/2 Exp. 4/3 Exp. 4/4

Exp. 4/5

Exp. 4/6

Exp. 4/7

Exp. 4/8

Exp. 9/1

Exp. 9/2

Exp. 9/3

Exp. 9/4

D

D D D D

I

I

I

D

D

I

I

D D D D D

J

J

J

J

M

D

D

D

D

I

MS I

MS D

J

J J J J

M

M

M

J

J

J

J

J J J J J

Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr

Tr Tr Tr Tr

A

A

Tr

A

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

L

L

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD LD LD LD

T

T

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD LD LD LD LD

Haft Mat. 24 24 24 24 24

24 24 24 24

Pe 24

Pe 42

Pe 24

Pe 42

Pe 24

Pa 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe Pe Pe Pe

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pe 42

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

HT HM TP TD AP

0

0

32

32

32

32

32 32 32 32 32

Bin

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0

32

32

32 32 32 32

32

32

32 leather 0

0

0

W Specif. 0 0 0 0 0 deer 32 leather deer 32 leather

Wr ap 0 0 0 0 0

ash

deer

ash

deer

taxus

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

32

32

32 leather 32 cow 32 20 leather

nutt-tree 32 leather 32

taxus

ash

ash ash ash ash

0

0

antler

ash

ash

beech

beech

HM Specif. ash ash ash ash ash

Table 1.1. Summarised general table of hafting experiments

ID

lime tree

leather

leather

linen

leather

leather

leather

leather

leather leather leather leather

leather

leather

0

leather

leather

leather

cow leather

leather leather leather leather leather

B Specif.

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

B Dir. 0 0 2 0 2

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0

F Specif.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

80 resin

80 resin

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0

Fix

ventral

ventral

ventral

dorsal

both

both

both

ventral

ventral ventral ventral ventral

both

both

both

ventral

ventral

dorsal

dorsal

H Contact dorsal dorsal dorsal dorsal dorsal adzing adzing adzing adzing adzing

Activity

drilling

adzing adzing adzing adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

medial adzing part prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part prox part prox part prox part

prox part drilling

dist part

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

prox part adzing

Hafted Part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

4:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

0:36:32

0:30:00

1:15:00

1:15:00

1:00:00

0:48:10 0:20:00 (appr) 0:37:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 0:07:00

0:50:00

0:25:00

0:03:00

0:39:25

0:20:14

0:30:30 0:02:30 0:08:14 0:23:52 0:44:09

H:min:sec

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

3 3 3 1

3

3

3

2

1

3

2

Rel. Dur. 3 1 1 2 3

schist

acacia (locust tree) acacia (locust tree) acacia (locust tree) schist

oak

oak

Wmat Specif. oak oak oak oak oak

oak

earth

earth

10+20

earth, stone, plants, roots earth, 10+20 plants earth, 10+20 plants

24

10

10

earth earth earth earth earth and 10+20 grass very wet 10 earth

10 10 10 10

12

12

24

24

24

24

24

24 24 24 24 24

Wmat

scraper

blade

scraper

scraper

tranchet

tranchet

tranchet

tranchet

tranchet tranchet tranchet tranchet

drillbit

drillbit

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper scraper scraper scraper adze

Tooltype

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

coarse fine fine coarse

coarse

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size fine fine fine fine ftanite

214 PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

10/2 10/3 10/4 10/5 10/66 10/7 10/8

B

B

B

10/4 10/8 10/8 10/9 10/1 10/3 10/9

10/10

10/11

10/7

10/12

10/5

10/4 10/7 10/66 10/3 10/4 10/1 10/9 10/8 10/5 10/12

Exp. 10/2 Exp. 10/3 Exp. 10/4 Exp. 10/5 Exp. 10/6 Exp. 10/7 Exp. 10/8

Exp. 10/9

Exp. 10/10

Exp. 10/11

Exp. 10/12 Exp. 10/13 Exp. 10/14 Exp. 10/15 Exp. 10/16 Exp. 10/17 Exp. 10/18

Exp. 10/19

Exp. 10/20

Exp. 10/21

Exp. 10/22

Exp. 10/23

Exp. 10/24 Exp. 10/25 Exp. 10/26 Exp. 10/27 Exp. 10/28 Exp. 10/29 Exp. 10/30 Exp. 10/31 Exp. 10/32 Exp. 10/33

J J J J J J MS M J J

J

J

J

J

J

J M M MS J J MS

M

M

M

J J J J J J M

J

D D D D I D D I D I

I

I

I

D

D

D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D D D D D D D

I

A

A

A

A A A A A A A

A

A

A

A A A Tr Tr A A

A

T T LD T T T T T LD LD

A A Tr A A A A A Tr Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

T

T

T

T T T T T T T

T

T

T

T T T LD LD T T

T

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Pe

Pe

Pe

Pe

Pe

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Pe

Pe

Pe

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Pe

HT HM TP TD AP

Table 1.1. (continued)

10/1

Haft Nr.

Exp. 10/1

ID

Haft HM Wr W Mat. Specif. ap Specif. sheep 24 beech 32 leather 24 brush 0 0 42 reindeer 0 0 24 beech 0 0 24 beech 0 0 42 deer 0 0 24 beech 0 0 42 deer 0 0 wet 32 0 0 leather wet 32 0 0 leather wet 32 0 0 leather 24 beech 0 0 42 deer 0 0 42 deer 0 0 24 ash 0 0 24 beech 0 0 42 reindeer 0 0 24 ash 0 0 fresh 24 0 0 maple fresh 24 0 0 maple 24 beech 32 leather wet 24 ash 32 leather wet 24 beech 32 leather 24 beech 0 0 24 beech 0 0 42 deer 0 0 42 reindeer 0 0 24 beech 32 leather 24 beech 0 0 24 ash 0 0 42 deer 32 leather 24 beech 0 0 24 ash 32 leather 32 32 20 20 20 32 32 0 20 20

32

32

20

32

32

20 0 0 20 32 32 20

32

32

32

32 32 20 32 20 20 0

20

Bin

wet leather leather linen linen linen leather leather 0 linen linen

wet leather

wet leather

linen

wet leather

wet leather

linen 0 0 linen wet leather wet leather linen

wet leather

wet leather

wet leather

cowhide cowhide linen cowhide linen linen 0

linen

B Specif.

0 0 0 0 0 0 20

0 1 0 0 2 (2) 2 0 1 0

0

2

0

1

2

0 0 0 0 2 1 1

0

2

0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 20 0 0 0 0 20

0

0

(2) 0

(2) 2 0 2 0 2 0

(2) 0

B Fix Dir.

0 0 0 0 0 0 wooden sticks 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 twigs 0 0 0 0 wooden sticks

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 twigs

0

F Specif.

ventral ventral dorsal ventral ventral ventral both both dorsal dorsal

ventral

dorsal

ventral

dorsal

dorsal

ventral dorsal both both ventral ventral both

both

both

both

ventral ventral ventral dorsal ventral ventral dorsal

ventral

Activity

chiselling chiselling chiselling scraping scraping chiselling chiselling

chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling chiselling

prox part prox part dist part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

scraping scraping adzing chiselling chiselling scraping chiselling chiselling scraping adzing

prox part scraping

prox part adzing

prox part scraping

prox part chiselling

prox part chiselling

prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

prox part 0

prox part 0

prox part 0

prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

prox part chiselling

H Hafted Contact Part

0:30:54 0:20:05 0:02:11 0:01:44 0:00:15 0:30:00 0:30:38 0:02:10 0:31:22 0:14:34

0:30:34

0:30:09

0:30:25

0:00:20

0:00:20

0:47:35 0:32:42 0:00:46 0:04:42 0:30:10 0:40:45 0:40:12

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

0:30:00 0:25:00 0:04:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 0:30:30 0:01:00

0:00:10

H:min:sec

3 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 2

3

3

3

1

1

3 3 1 1 3 3 3

0

0

0

3 2 1 3 3 3 1

1

24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

24

24

24

24

24

24 24 24 24 24 24 24

0

0

0

24 24 24 24 24 24 24

24

Rel. Wmat Dur.

oak oak oak ash ash oak ash ash oak oak

oak

oak

oak

ash

ash

ash ash ash ash ash ash ash

0

0

0

oak oak oak oak oak ash ash

oak

Wmat Specif.

scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper

blade

blade

blade

scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper

scraper

Tooltype

fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine fine fine fine fine fine fine

fine

fine

fine

fine fine fine fine fine fine fine

fine

Grain size

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS 215

Haft Nr. 10/1 10/3 10/4 10/7 10/5 10/13 10/4 10/1 10/6 10/4 10/3 10/1 10/4 10/1 13/13 13/14 10/8 14/15 10/9 B 10/9 B 14/15 14/16 14/16 14/16

14/17

14/18

15/17

15/18

15/19

15/20

15/21

Exp. 10/34 Exp. 10/35 Exp. 10/36 Exp. 10/37 Exp. 10/38 Exp. 10/39 Exp. 13/4 Exp. 13/5 Exp. 13/6 Exp. 13/7 Exp. 13/8 Exp. 13/10 Exp. 13/11 Exp. 13/13 Exp. 13/14 Exp. 13/15 Exp. 14/1 Exp. 14/2 Exp. 14/3 Exp. 14/4 Exp. 14/5 Exp. 14/6 Exp. 14/7 Exp. 14/8 Exp. 14/9 Exp. 14/10

Exp. 14/11

Exp. 14/12

Exp. 15/1

Exp. 15/2

Exp. 15/3

Exp. 15/4

Exp. 15/5

D D D D D D I I D I D I D D I I I D D D D D D D D D

I

I

I

D

M

I

MS D

M

M

M

J

MS I

J J J J J MS J J M J J J J J J J M MS MS M MS M MS J J J

L

T

L

L

L

T

T

T T T T LD T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A A A A Tr A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

Haft Mat. 24 42 24 24 24 24 24 24 42 24 42 24 24 24 24 24 42 24 24 32 24 32 24 24 24 24

Pa 24

Pe 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

HT HM TP TD AP

Table 1.1. (continued)

ID

0

0

0

nutt-tree 0

nutt-tree 0

nutt-tree 0

nutt-tree 0

0

0

0

Wr ap 32 32 32 32 0 0 32 32 0 32 0 32 0 0 32 beech 32 deer 32 nutt-tree 0 ash 0 leather 0 ash 0 leather 0 nutt-tree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HM Specif. beech reindeer beech beech beech nutt-tree beech beech deer beech reindeer beech beech beech

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

W Specif. leather leather leather leather 0 0 leather leather 0 leather 0 leather 0 0 leather leather leather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

20

0

0

0

32

0

32 32 32 32 32 20 32 32 0 32 32 32 32 32 20 20 0 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Bin

0

linen

0

0

0

leather

0

leather leather wet leather wet leather leather linen leather leather 0 leather leather leather leather leather linen linen 0 leather leather leather leather leather leather leather leather leather

B Specif.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

B Dir. 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 F Specif.

H Contact ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral both dorsal dorsal both ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral ventral dorsal both both both both both both both ventral ventral ventral

spruce both resin+charcoal

80

80

spruce both resin+charcoal

spruce both resin+charcoal spruce 80 both resin+charcoal

80

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 spruce 80 both resin+charcoal 0 0 ventral spruce 80 both resin+charcoal

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fix chiselling chiselling scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping sawing scraping scraping scraping scraping cutting scraping scraping perforating drilling perforating perforating perforating perforating drilling drilling drilling drilling

Activity

sawing

sawing

sawing

prox left sawing edge

prox part scraping

prox right edge right lateral

lateral

prox part drilling

prox part drilling

Hafted Part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part dist part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

0:35:00

1:00:00

1:20:00

0:30:00

0:30:30

0:20:00

0:35:00

0:24:47 0:03:32 0:30:04 0:42:00 0:30:12 0:50:00 0:03:00 0:13:00 0:15:00 0:06:00 0:30:00 0:06:00 0:20:00 0:30:00 2:30:00 2:30:00 0:24:03 0:39:00 0:19:00 0:30:00 0:36:00 0:30:00 0:18:00 0:01:18 0:01:06 0:13:20

H:min:sec

3

4

4

3

3

2

3

Rel. Dur. 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 2

42

24

24

24

24

41

41

24 24 24 24 24 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 42 12 12 12

Wmat

scraper blade

lateral branch of antler

blade

blade

blade

borer

borer

scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper blade scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper scraper borer borer borer borer borer borer borer borer borer borer

Tooltype

wood

wood

wood

wood

bone

bone

Wmat Specif. ash ash oak oak oak spruce schist (wet) schist (wet) schist wet schist schist wet schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist antler schist schist schist

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine

216 PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

M

M

M

M

M

10/3

15/24

10/1

15/25

15/23

15/21

15/22

15/18

15/29

TC

Exp. 15/11

Exp. 15/12

Exp. 15/13

Exp. 15/14

Exp. 15/15

Exp. 15/16C 15/26

15/19

Exp. 15/10

Exp. 15/16B 15/26

15/28

Exp. 15/9

Exp. 15/16A 15/26

15/27

Exp. 15/8

Exp. 15/17

Exp. 15/18

Exp. 15/19

Exp. 15/20

Exp. 15/21

D

I

I

M

Exp. 15/22B 15/30

Table 1.1. (continued)

M

Exp. 15/22A 15/30

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

J

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

MS D

J

M

15/23

Exp. 15/7

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

T

T

T

L

L

A

A

A

A

A

Tr

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Ob 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 42

Pa 24

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

ash

ash

0

0

0

0

0

0

nutt-tree 0

birch

0

0

0

0

nutt-tree 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20

32 leather 0

nutt-tree 0

maple

0

0

reindeer 32 leather 0

nutt-tree 0

nutt-tree 0

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pa 24

HT HM TP TD AP

15/22

Haft Nr.

Exp. 15/6

ID

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

linen

0

0

0

0

B Specif.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

F Specif.

H Hafted Activity Contact Part spruce prox left 80 both sawing resin+charcoal edge prox spruce 80 both right sawing resin+charcoal edge spruce 80 ventral prox part scraping resin+charcoal spruce 80 both prox part 0 resin+charcoal spruce 80 dorsal prox part scraping resin+charcoal spruce lateral 80 both scraping resin+charcoal right spruce lateral 80 both sawing resin+charcoal right spruce prox left 80 both sawing resin+charcoal edge spruce dist right 80 both sawing resin+charcoal edge spruce prox left 80 both sawing resin+charcoal edge spruce left 80 both cutting resin+charcoal lateral spruce right 80 both cutting resin+charcoal lateral spruce right 80 both cutting resin+charcoal lateral spruce prox left 80 both cutting resin+charcoal edge resin+charcoal 80 both prox part cutting +grease spruce right 80 both scraping resin+charcoal lateral spruce prox left 80 both sawing resin+charcoal edge spruce prox left 80 resin+cha both scraping edge rcoal spruce left 80 both cutting resin+charcoal lateral spruce right 80 both cutting resin+charcoal lateral

B Fix Dir.

2:00:00

2:00:00

1:20:00

1:20:00

1:00:00

0:20:00

0:20:00

0:20:00

0:20:00

0:20:00

1:20:00

2:00:00

2:00:00

1:30:00

1:00:00

0:52:22

0:00:00

0:25:00

1:45:00

2:00:00

H:min:sec

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

3

0

2

4

4

22

22

23

42

42

23

23

23

23

23

42

50

31

20

32

32

0

24

12

24

Rel. Wmat Dur.

plants

plants

reed

antler

antler

fresh rush

fresh rush

fresh rush

fresh rush

fresh rush

fine

fine

coarse

coarse

coarse

sickle blade fine

sickle blade fine

blade

blade

blade

large blade

sickle blade fine

sickle blade fine

sickle blade fine

sickle blade fine

blade

antler (deer)

fine fine

blade

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size

bone, meat blade

meat

blade

blade

fresh pig hide vegetables

scraper

scraper

scraper

blade

blade

Tooltype

dry hide

0

oak

schist

nutt-tree

Wmat Specif.

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS 217

J

J

J

M

M

M

J

16/1

16/1

10/6

10/6

10/4 10/13 13/14

CC1

10/8

10/4

13/13 16/2

16/1

15/20

16/3

Exp. 16/2y

Exp. 16/3 Exp. 16/4 Exp. 16/5

Exp. 16/6

Exp. 16/7

Exp. 16/8

Exp. 16/9 Exp. 16/10

Exp. 16/11

Exp. 16/12

Exp. 16/13

Exp. 16/15

Exp. 16/16x B

Exp. 16/16y B

16/6

Exp. 16/2x

Exp. 16/14y 16/4

16/5

Exp. 16/1y

Exp. 16/14x 16/4

LP

Exp. 16/1x

Exp. 16/17

Exp. 16/18

I

I

I

D

D

D

Table 1.1. (continued)

J

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

MS D

MS D

J D MS D

J

M

J

J D MS D J D

M

M

MS D

MS D

M

15/20

Exp. 15/23

I

A

A

A A

A

A

A

A A A

A

A

A

A

A

A

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

LD Tr

T

T

T T

T

T

T

T T T

T

T

T

T

L

L

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 32

Pa 32

Pa 42

Pe 41

Pa 41

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24 Pa 24

Pe 24

Pe 42

Pe 24

Pa 24 Pe 24 Pe 24

Pa 42

Pe 42

Pe 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

maple

maple

wet leather wet leather

deer

deer

deer

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0

32

32

20 32

32

0

32

32 32 20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

32

32

0

32

32

32 leather 32

0

0

0

0

0

0

32 leather 32

nutt-tree 0

0

0 maple

beech

0

0

32 leather 20

nutt-tree 0 deer

0

0

32 leather 20

0

0

beech 0 nutt-tree 0 beech 0

deer

deer

0

0

0

ash

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pa 24

HT HM TP TD AP

M

Haft Nr.

Exp. 15/22C 15/30

ID

leather

leather

wet leather

wet leather

0

leather

leather

leather

leather

leather

linen leather

leather

0

leather

leather leather lime tree

0

0

linen

linen

0

0

B Specif.

0

2

1

1

0

1

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

20 wooden sticks

0

0 0 (1) 0

2

0

2

2 2 1

0

0

1

1

0

0

F Specif.

ventral

ventral

both

both

both

ventral

ventral

ventral

both

both

ventral both

dorsal

both

ventral

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part cutting

prox part striking

prox part cutting

prox part cutting

prox part adzing

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

H Hafted Activity Contact Part spruce left 80 both cutting resin+charcoal lateral spruce left 80 both shaving resin+charcoal lateral spruce 80 both prox part scraping resin+charcoal spruce 80 both prox part grooving resin+charcoal spruce 80 both prox part grooving resin+charcoal spruce 80 both prox part scraping resin+charcoal 0 0 ventral dist part smoothing 0 0 both prox part grooving 0 0 dorsal prox part grooving

B Fix Dir.

1:30:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

0:35:00

2:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:15:00 1:00:00

1:10:00

1:30:00

0:35:00

0:30:00 0:55:00 2:00:00

0:05:00

1:00:00

0:55:00

1:00:00

0:20:00

2:00:00

H:min:sec

4

4

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 4

4

4

3

3 3 4

1

4

3

4

2

4

bone

bone

antler

antler

32

32

32

32

11

Grain size

blade retouched markasite blade fresh sheep retouched hide blade fresh sheep retouched hide blade fresh sheep retouched hide blade wetted scraper sheep hide

blade

scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper scraper

scraper

scraper

scraper

blade burin burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine fine

fine

fine

fine

fine fine fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

sickle blade fine

Tooltype

fresh wood blade (debarking)

plants

Wmat Specif.

ceramics antler antler wet snake 32 hide 41 cow bone fresh pig 32 hide 24 dry wood 32 dry pig hide bone 41 with meat remains 42 dry antler earth and 10 plants vegetables, 20+31 meat 20 vegetables

10 42 42

41

41

42

42

24

22

Rel. Wmat Dur.

218 PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

M

Exp. 19/3B

M

Exp. 19/4B

M

Exp. 19/5B

13/14

10/4

16/2

Exp. 20/3

Exp. 20/4

Exp. 20/5

D

D

Table 1.1. (continued)

MS D

J

J

D

20/2

Exp. 20/2

M

MS D

20/1

Exp. 20/1

D

J

D

D

D

I

D

D

D

D

D

D

Exp. 19/6A

B

J

Exp. 19/5A 19/3

B

M

Exp. 19/4A 15/17

B

J

Exp. 19/3A 16/4

B

M

M

Exp. 19/2B

B

Exp. 16/23

D

D

MS D

J

10/13

Exp. 16/22

M

Exp. 19/2A 19/2

B

Exp. 16/21

M

J

CC3

Exp. 16/20

MS D

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

L

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Tr

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pa 41

Pe 32

Pe 24

Pa 32

Pa 24

Pe 32

Pe 41

Pe 32

Pe 24

Pe 24

Pe 32

Pe 24

Pe 20

Pa 24

maple

beech

beech

0

0

bone

leather

maple

leather

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

wet leather 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

deer

yewtree yewtree wet leather

leather

lime tree 0

elder

birch

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

31

31

32

32

32

32

32

32

0

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

20

0

32

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pe 24

HT HM TP TD AP

Exp. 19/1A 19/1

CC2

Haft Nr.

Exp. 16/19

ID

2

fresh intestines

2

2

fresh intestines

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

0

0

0

0

0

0

(2) 0

1

leather

0

(2) 0

0

(1) 0

B Fix Dir.

leather

leather

leather

leather

leather

leather

0

wet leather

leather

wet leather

leather

leather

leather

leather

lime tree

0

wet leather

B Specif.

both

dorsal

both

dorsal

ventral

both

both

both

both

both

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

both

ventral

dorsal

both

both

dorsal

both

ventral

both

scraping

Activity

0:43:00

1:10:00

0:40:00

1:00:00

H:min:sec

sawing

sawing

grooving

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

medial part left lateral right lateral

prox part grooving

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

prox part grooving

0:25:43

0:11:48

0:43:13

0:53:18

0:36:47

0:50:00

1:05:00

1:00:00

0:20:00

0:30:00

1:30:00

1:19:00

0:50:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

prox part perforating 1:00:00

prox part scraping

prox part grooving

prox part drilling

dist part

H Hafted Contact Part

spruce both resin+charcoal

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

F Specif.

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

2

3

4

4

3

4

4

4

3

4

3

4

schist

Wmat Specif. tanned sheep hide fluorite with water

32

32

32

32

32

42

42

42

41

41

dry deer antler dry deer antler soaked antler fresh deer hide dry deer hide + ochre (+) dry deer hide + ochre (-) dry deer hide + ochre (-) fresh deer hide

fresh bone

fresh bone

bone alternating 42+12 antler and schist fresh cattle 41 bone fresh cattle 41 bone meat and 31+41 bone dry deer 42 antler dry deer 42 antler

41

12

11

32

Rel. Wmat Dur.

scraper

scraper

coarse

coarse

fine

fine

tanged scraper scraper

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

coarse

fine

coarse

Grain size

scraper

borer

burin

burin

blade

blade

burin

burin

scraper

scraper

burin

perforator

scraper

scraper

drillbit

scraper

Tooltype

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS 219

20/3

20/4

22/1 22/1

22/1

22/1 22/1

22/1

22/2 22/2

22/2

22/2 22/2 22/2 22/2 22/3

22/3

22/3 22/4 22/4 22/4 22/5 22/5 22/5 22/6 22/6 22/6 W W W W W

Exp. 20/7

Exp. 20/8

Exp. 22/1 Exp. 22/2

Exp. 22/3

Exp. 22/4 Exp. 22/5

Exp. 22/6

Exp. 22/7x Exp. 22/7y

Exp. 22/8

Exp. 22/9 Exp. 22/10 Exp. 22/11 Exp. 22/12 Exp. 22/13

Exp. 22/14

Exp. 22/15 Exp. 22/16 Exp. 22/17 Exp. 22/18 Exp. 22/19 Exp. 22/20 Exp. 22/21 Exp. 22/22 Exp. 22/23 Exp. 22/24 Exp. 22/25 Exp. 22/26 Exp. 22/27 Exp. 22/28 Exp. 22/29

D

D D

D

D D

I

I I I I D

MS MS MS MS M M M M M M M M M M M

D I I I D D D I I I I I I I I

MS D

MS MS MS MS MS

MS D

MS D MS D

J

J J

J

J J

M

MS D

MS D

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

T

T T T T T

T

T T

T

T T

T

T T

L

L

T

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A

A A A A A

A

A A

A

A A

A

A A

A

Tr

A

24 24 24 24 24

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

24 24 24 24 42 42 42 42 42 42 32 32 32 32 32

Pa 24

Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa

Pa 24

Pa 24 Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24 Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24 Pa 24

Pe 24

Pe 24

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 leather leather leather leather leather

0

0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0 0

32

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 32 32 32

0

0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 leather leather leather leather leather

0

0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 32 32 32

31

0 0 0 0 32

31

32 32

31

32 31

31

32 32

32 leather 0

0

nutt-tree 0

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pe 24

HT HM TP TD AP

Table 1.1. (continued)

15/20

Haft Nr.

Exp. 20/6

ID

leather wet leather fresh intestines leather tendons fresh intestines leather wet leather fresh intestines 0 0 0 0 leather fresh intestines wet leather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 leather leather leather leather leather

0

(leather)

leather

B Specif.

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0

0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0

0

0 0

2

0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

F Specif.

0 80 80 80 0 0 0 80 80 80 0 0 0 0 0

0

80 80 80 80 0

0

0 0

0 resin resin resin 0 0 0 resin resin resin 0 0 0 0 0

0

resin resin resin resin 0

0

0 0

80 resin

80 resin 80 resin

0

0 0

0

0

0

B Fix Dir.

both both both both both both both both both both both both both both both

both

both both both both both

both

both both

ventral

ventral ventral

ventral

ventral ventral

both

both

both

Activity

scraping

drilling drilling drilling drilling perforating

0:25:00 0:30:00 0:25:00 0:05:00 1:00:00

0:15:00

0:10:00 0:30:00

0:30:00

0:20:00 0:25:00

0:15:00

0:05:00 0:30:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

0:14:00

H:min:sec

prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating

0:35:00 0:40:00 0:50:00 0:50:00 0:40:00 0:45:00 0:40:00 1:00:00 0:45:00 0:35:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 0:40:00 0:30:00 0:40:00

prox part perforating 0:30:00

prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

prox part drilling

prox part drilling prox part drilling

prox part drilling

prox part drilling prox part drilling

prox part drilling

prox part drilling prox part drilling

lateral

prox part scraping

prox part scraping

H Hafted Contact Part

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3

2 3 2 1 4

2

1 3

3

2 2

2

1 3

4

4

2

41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

41

41 41 41 41 41

41

41 41

41

41 41

41

41 41

32

32

32

Rel. Wmat Dur.

fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone

fresh bone

fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone

fresh bone

fresh bone fresh bone

fresh bone

fresh bone fresh bone

fresh bone

Wmat Specif. fresh deer hide hide on wood hide on wood fresh bone fresh bone

perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator perforator

perforator

drillbit drillbit drillbit perforator perforator

drillbit

drillbit drillbit

drillbit

drillbit drillbit

drillbit

drillbit drillbit

scraper

scraper

scraper

Tooltype

fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse coarse fine

fine

fine fine fine coarse fine

coarse

coarse coarse

coarse

fine fine

fine

coarse fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size

220 PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

22/7

22/7

22/7

22/7

22/8

22/8

22/8

22/8

22/8

22/9

22/9

22/9

22/9

22/9

22/10

22/10

22/10

22/11 22/11 22/11

22/12

22/12

Exp. 22/31

Exp. 22/32

Exp. 22/33

Exp. 22/34

Exp. 22/35

Exp. 22/36

Exp. 22/37

Exp. 22/38

Exp. 22/39

Exp. 22/40

Exp. 22/41

Exp. 22/42

Exp. 22/43

Exp. 22/44

Exp. 22/45

Exp. 22/46

Exp. 22/47

Exp. 22/48 Exp. 22/49 Exp. 22/50

Exp. 22/51

Exp. 22/52

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

MS I

MS I

MS D MS D MS D

MS I

MS I

MS I

MS D

MS D

MS D

MS D

MS D

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

T

T

T T T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

A

A

A A A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

LD Tr

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42 Pa 42 Pa 42

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

antler

antler

antler antler antler

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32 32 32

0

0

0

31

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pa 24

HT HM TP TD AP

Table 1.1. (continued)

22/7

Haft Nr.

Exp. 22/30

ID

0

0

leather leather leather

0

0

0

tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather tanned leather sheepintestines

B Specif.

0

0

0 0 2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

80

80

0 0 0

80

80

80

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

B Fix Dir.

spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal 0 0 0 spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

F Specif.

both

both

both both both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

ventral

Activity

grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving prox part grooving prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

dist part

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

H Hafted Contact Part

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00 1:00:00 1:00:00

1:02:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

0:58:00

0:00:10

1:00:00

1:00:00

0:29:00

0:55:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

H:min:sec

4

4

4 4 4

4

4

4

4

4

3

1

4

4

2

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

24

24 24 24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

Rel. Wmat Dur.

burin burin burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

fresh wood burin

fresh wood burin

dry wood dry wood dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry and hard wood dry and hard wood

burin

burin

dry and hard wood dry wood

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

Tooltype

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

dry wood

Wmat Specif.

fine

coarse

fine fine fine

fine

fine

fine

coarse

fine

fine

coarse

fine

fine

fine

fine

coarse

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS 221

M

M

M

M

M

M

B

W

B

B

B

22/14

22/14

22/14

22/14

22/15

22/15

22/15

22/15

22/15

22/15

Exp. 22/54

Exp. 22/55

Exp. 22/56

Exp. 22/57

Exp. 22/58

Exp. 22/64

Exp. 22/65

Exp. 22/66

Exp. 22/67

Exp. 22/68

Exp. 22/69

Exp. 22/70

Exp. 22/71

Exp. 22/72

Exp. 22/73

Exp. 22/74A 22/16

Exp. 22/74B 22/16

Exp. 22/75A 22/16

Exp. 22/75B 22/16

Exp. 22/76A 22/16

Table 1.1. (continued)

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

D

D

I

D

MS I

22/13

Exp. 22/53

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

T

T

T

T

T

T

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 32

Pa 32

Pa 32

Pa 32

Pa 32

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

wood

wood

wood

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

wet leather wood

0

leather

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

32

32

0

32

0

wet leather

0

0

32 leather 20

0

0

0

leather

antler

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pa 42

HT HM TP TD AP

Haft Nr.

ID

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

wet leather

leather

wet leather

leather lime tree (raffia)

0

B Specif.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

0

0

0

0

0

80

B Fix Dir.

spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal

0

0

0

0

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

both

Activity

right lateral right lateral left lateral right lateral left lateral right lateral left lateral left lateral left lateral right lateral right lateral left lateral right lateral right lateral right lateral cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

H Hafted Contact Part

spruce both resin+charcoal 0 both

F Specif.

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

H:min:sec

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

4

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

24

24

24

24

24

24

Rel. Wmat Dur.

burin

burin

burin

burin

burin

Tooltype

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

Cherry tree burin

Acer Pseudoplatanus Acer Pseudoplatanus

Corylus

wood

dry wood

Wmat Specif.

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size

222 PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MS D

Exp. 22/78A 22/16

Exp. 22/78B 22/16

Exp. 22/79A 22/16

Exp. 22/79B 22/16

Exp. 22/79C 22/16

Exp. 22/80B 22/17

Exp. 22/80A 22/17

Exp. 22/81A 22/17

Exp. 22/81B 22/17

Exp. 22/82A 22/17

Exp. 22/82B 22/17

Exp. 22/83A 22/17

Exp. 22/83B 22/17

Exp. 22/83C 22/17

Exp. 22/84A 22/17

Exp. 22/84B 22/17

Exp. 22/84C 22/17

Exp. 24/8

Table 1.1. (continued)

22/11

M

Exp. 22/77B 22/16

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

M

Exp. 22/77A 22/16

I

T

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Pe 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 42

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

Pa 24

0

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

antler

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

wood

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Haft HM Wr W Bin Mat. Specif. ap Specif.

Pa 24

HT HM TP TD AP

M

Haft Nr.

Exp. 22/76B 22/16

ID

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

B Specif.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

B Fix Dir. spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal spruce resin+charcoal 0

F Specif.

H Hafted Contact Part left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral right both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral right both lateral right both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral right both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral left both lateral both prox part 0

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

cutting

Activity

0:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

1:00:00

H:min:sec

0

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

0

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

Rel. Wmat Dur.

0

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

cereals

Wmat Specif.

scraper

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

blade

Tooltype

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

fine

Grain size

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS 223

Haft Nr. 1/12

22/5

22/11 22/5 22/3 B

B

22/11

22/5

26/1 26/2 26/3 26/4 26/3 26/3 26/5

26/6

26/7

26/8

26/9

26/10 26/11 22/5 20/1 22/11 10/4 10/4 20/1 22/5 22/11

Exp. 24/9

Exp. 24/10

Exp. 24/11 Exp. 24/12 Exp. 24/13 Exp. 25/2

Exp. 25/3

Exp. 25/4

Exp. 25/5

Exp. 26/1 Exp. 26/2 Exp. 26/3 Exp. 26/4 Exp. 26/5 Exp. 26/6 Exp. 26/7

Exp. 26/8

Exp. 26/9

Exp. 26/10

Exp. 26/11

Exp. 26/12 Exp. 26/13 Exp. 27/1 Exp. 27/4 Exp. 27/14 Exp. 27/16 Exp. 28/1 Exp. 28/2 Exp. 28/3 Exp. 28/4

D

D D D D

D

D

M M M MS MS J J MS M MS

M

M

M

M

M M M M M M M

M

D D D D D D D D D D

D

D

D

D

D D D D D D D

D

MS D

M

MS M MS M

M

M

T T T T T T T T T T

T

T

T

T

T T T T T T T

T

T

T

T T T T

T

A A A A A A A A A A

A

A

A

A

A A A A A A A

A

A

A

A A A A

A

LD Tr

41 41 41 42 41 41 42

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

42 42 42 24 42 24 24 24 42 42

Pe 42

Pe 42

Pe 42

Pe 42

Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe Pe

Pa 42

Pa 42

deer deer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

deer

deer

deer

deer

deer deer deer deer deer deer deer

antler

antler

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

Haft HM Wr Mat. Specif. ap Pe 42 0 both Pe 42 0 41&42 Pe 42 0 0 Pe 42 0 0 Pe 24 0 0 Pe 32 leather 0 lime Pe 20 0 tree

HT HM TP TD AP

Table 1.1. (continued)

ID

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 32 0 32 32 32 0 32

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

20

20

0 0 32 32

0

0 0 0 leather 0 leather leather leather 0 leather

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 no contact leather lime tree bark lime tree bark

0

W Bin B Specif. Specif. 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

1

1

0 0 0 2

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

B Fix F Specif. Dir. 0 0 0

both both both both both ventral ventral both both both

both

both

both

both

both both both both both both both

both

both

both

both both both both

both 0 0 0 grooving

grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving

0:05:00 2:10:00 0:30:00 1:10:00 0:05:00 0:45:00 1:00:00

0:25:00

0:25:00

0:23:00

0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:23:00

0:00:00

0:00:00

H:min:sec

prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part

perforating perforating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1:00:00 0:50:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

prox part perforating 1:00:00

prox part perforating 1:00:00

prox part perforating 0:03:00

prox part perforating 0:03:00

prox part prox part prox part prox part dist part prox part prox part

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part grooving

prox part prox part prox part prox part

prox part 0

H Hafted Activity Contact Part both prox part 0

4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4

4

1

1

1 4 3 4 1 3 4

2

2

2

0 0 0 2

0

42 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42

42

42

42

24 24 24 24 24 42 41

42

42

41

0 0 0 41

0

soaked antler soaked antler fresh wood fresh wood wood wood taxus wood deer antler bone moistured antler (spongiosa) moistured antler (spongiosa) dry antler (spongiosa) dry antler (spongiosa) dry antler dry antler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

fresh bone

0 0 0 fresh bone

0

Rel. Wmat Wmat Dur. Specif. 0 0 0

fine fine fine fine fine fine fine

fine

fine

fine

fine fine fine fine

fine

Grain size fine

tanged burin tanged burin blade blade burin perforater scraper scraper scraper burin

fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine coarse coarse fine

tanged burin fine

tanged burin fine

tanged burin fine

tanged burin fine

tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin tanged burin

burin

burin

burin

scraper scraper scraper burin

blade

scraper

Tooltype

224 PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

ANNEX II: GENERAL TABLE OF EXPERIMENTS

ID Exp. 2/1 Exp. 2/3 Exp. 2/4 Exp. 2/12 Exp. 2/13 Exp. 2/15 Exp. 2/16 Exp. 2/17 Exp. 2/18 Exp. 12/1 Exp. 12/2 Exp. 12/3 Exp. 12/4 Exp. 12/5 Exp. 12/6 Exp. 12/7x Exp. 12/7y Exp. 12/8 Exp. 12/9 Exp. 12/10 Exp. 12/11 Exp. 12/12 Exp. 12/13 Exp. 12/14 Exp. 12/15 Exp. 12/16 Exp. 12/17 Exp. 12/18 Exp. 13/1 Exp. 13/2 Exp. 13/3 Exp. 13/9 Exp. 13/12 Exp. 19/1B Exp. 19/1C Exp. 19/3C Exp. 19/4C Exp. 19/5C Exp. 22/59 Exp. 22/60 Exp. 22/61 Exp. 22/62 Exp. 22/63 Exp. 22/85 Exp. 22/86 Exp. 22/87 Exp. 22/88 Exp. 22/89 Exp. 22/90 Exp. 22/91 Exp. 25/1

Hand Contact left lateral med part dist part dorsal prox part prox part prox part prox part med part prox part prox part both dorsal right lateral right lateral left lateral left lateral prox part variable right lateral all all all prox part dist part left lateral prox part prox part prox part dorsal dorsal prox part ventral prox part dist part prox part left lateral prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part prox part all all prox part

Activity cutting grooving grooving polishing scraping scraping scraping scraping sawing perforating polishing smoothing smoothing sawing cutting sawing scraping grooving sawing scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping scraping cutting striking striking scraping polishing polishing scraping polishing grooving grooving grooving sawing grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving grooving perforating perforating perforating perforating perforating scraping scraping grooving

WMat. 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 24 32 24 24 41 41 32 41 24 12 12 12 24 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 41 41 42 41 42 24 24 24 24 24 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41

WM Specif. schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist schist clay ceramics ceramics wood wet snake hide dry wood dry wood fresh cattle bone fresh cattle bone fresh sheep hide interior fresh bone nutt-tree schist schist schist lime tree fibres pyrite pyrite wet schist wet schist schist schist schist fresh cattle bone fresh cattle bone dry deer antler fresh bone dry deer antler Corylus nutt-tree wood wood wood fresh cattle bone fresh cattle bone fresh cattle bone fresh cattle bone fresh cattle bone fresh bone fresh bone fresh bone

Table 1.2. Summarised general table of prehension experiments

Durat. (h:min:sec) 0:03:55 0:12:57 0:08:30 0:01:00 0:04:31 0:31:00 0:13:30 0:27:00 0:21:33 3:30:00 0:30:00 0:55:00 0:30:00 1:00:00 0:45:00 0:10:00 0:40:00 1:00:00 0:05:00 1:10:00 0:30:00 1:00:00 4:00:00 3:00:00 0:35:00 1:05:00 2:00:00 0:30:00 0:35:00 0:35:00 0:15:00 0:06:00 0:12:00 1:00:00 1:00:00 2:00:00 0:20:00 0:50:00 1:00:00 0:45:00 0:50:00 0:45:00 0:40:00 0:45:00 0:35:00 0:40:00 0:45:00 0:30:00 0:20:00 0:30:00 0:23:00

Rel. Dur. 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 3 4 1 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2

Tooltype retouched blade crested blade blade flake scraper scraper scraper scraper blade burin blade blade blade backed blade backed blade blade blade burin blade flake blade blade scraper scraper scraper backed blade blade blade blade blade blade scraper scraper burin burin burin blade burin burin burin burin burin burin drillbit drillbit drillbit drillbit drillbit blade blade burin

225

Grain size fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine coarse coarse fine coarse fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine fine fine coarse fine fine fine fine fine coarse coarse coarse coarse fine fine fine

REFERENCES

Albasini-Roulin, P. A. (1987). Approche ethno-comparative des emmanchements de l’outillage lithique néolithique de quelques stations littorales du canton de Fribourg (Suisse occ.). D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 219-228. Allain, J. and J. Descouts (1957). A propos d’une baguette à rainure armée de silex découverte dans le Magdalénien de St Marcel, L’Anthropologie 61: 503-512. Allain, J. and A. Rigaud (1993). 1. Fiches Navettes. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VI: Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc: 5-14. Amick, D. S., R. P. Mauldin and L. R. Binford (1989). The potential of experiments in lithic technology. D. S. Amick and R. P. Mauldin, Eds. Experiments in Lithic Technology. Oxford: 1-14. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1980). A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks: Diagnostic Residues on Stone Tool Working Edges, World Archaeology 12(2): 181-193. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1983). A Consideration of the Uses of certain Backed and « Lustred » Stone Tools from Late Mesolithic and Natufian levels of Abu Hureyra and Mureybet (Syria). M.-C. Cauvin, Ed. Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du ProcheOrient. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient: 77-105. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1990). Aspects of Behavior in the Middle Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France. P. Mellars, Ed. The Emergence of Modern Humans. Edinburgh: 389-418. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. C. (1981). Contribution méthodologique à l’analyse des micro-traces d’utilisation sur les outils préhistoriques. Institut du Quaternaire. Talence, Université de Bordeaux I. Anderson, P. C. (1992). Experimental Cultivation, Harvest and Treshing of Wild Cereals and their Relevance for Interpreting the Use of Epipaleolithic and Neolithic Artefacts. P.C.Anderson, Ed. Préhistoire de l’Agriculture. Nouvelles Approches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques, Editions du CNRS: 179-210. Anderson, P. C., H. Plisson and D. Ramseyer (1992). La moisson au Néolithique final: approche tracéologique d’outils en silex de Montilier et Portalban, Archäologie der Schweiz 15: 60-67. Andree, J. (1932). Beiträge zur Kenntnis des nord-deutschen Paläolithikums und Mesolithikums, Mannus-Bibl. 52: 21-36. Arbogast, R.-M. and P. Pétrequin (1993). La chasse au cerf au Néolithique dans le Jura: gestion d’une population animale sauvage. Exploitation des animaux sauvages à travers le temps, XIIIe rencontres internationales

d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Juan-les-Pins, APDCA: 221-232. Averbouh, A., C. Bellier, A. Billamboz, et al. (1995). Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique 7. Eléments barbelés et apparantés. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc. Backwell, L. R. and F. d’Errico (2001). Evidence of Termite Foraging by Swartkrans Early Hominids, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(4): 1358-1363. Baesemann, R. (1986). Natural Alterations of Stone Artefact Materials, Early Man News 9/10/11: 97-102. Bamforth, D., G. R. Burns and C. Woodman (1990). Ambiguous Use Traces and Blind Test Results: New Data, Journal of Archaeological Science 17: 413-430. Bamforth, D. B. (1988). Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context, Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 11-23. Bar-Yosef, O. (1985). A Cave in the Desert: Nahal Hemar 9000-year-old Finds. Jerusalem, The Israel Museum. Bar-Yosef, O. (1987). Direct and Indirect evidence for hafting in the Epi-Palaeolithic and Neolithic of the Southern Levant. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen: 155-164. Barge-Mahieu, H., C. Beldiman, D. Buisson, et al. (1993a). 3.0. Fiches générale manches. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VI: Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc: 23-31. Barge-Mahieu, H., H. Camps-Fabrer and S. Choi (1993b). 3.3. Fiches manches en os à insertion longitudinale. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VI: Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc: 59-68. Barquins, M. (1993). Colles naturelles et colles synthétiques, Pour la Science 192: 8-10. Baudais, D. (1983). Outillages et ustensiles en bois des sites préhistoriques de Chalain-Clairvaux (Jura). Faculté des Lettres de Besançon. Mémoire de Maîtrise: 184. Baudais, D. (1987). Les manches en bois dans le néolithique du Jura. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 197-210. Beldiman, C., H. Camps-Fabrer and J. G. Nandris (1993). 3.7. Fiche corps de faucille. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VI: Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc: 83-88. Bergman, C. A., E. McEwen and R. Miller (1988). Experimental Archery: Projectile Velocities and Comparison of Bow Performances, Antiquity 62: 65870.

228

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Beugnier, V. (1997). L’usage du silex dans l’acquisition et le traitement des matières animales dans le Néolithique de Chalain et Clairvaux. La Motte-aux-Magnins et Chalain 3 (Jura, France), 3700-2980 av. J.-C. Paris, Université de Paris X. Thèse de Doctorat. Beyries, S. (1987a). Variabilité de l’industrie lithique au Moustérien. Approche fonctionelle sur quelques gisements francais. Oxford. Beyries, S. (1987b). Quelques exemples de stigmates d’emmanchements observés sur des outils du Paléolithique moyen. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen, Lyon, 55-62. Beyries, S. (1988). Etude tracéologique des racloirs du niveau IIA. A. Tuffreau and J. Sommé, Eds. Le Gisement Paléolithique Moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pasde-Calais). Volume I. Stratigraphie, Environnement, Etudes archéologiques (1ère partie). 21: 215-230. Beyries, S. (1993a). L’importance du travail du bois en Préhistoire. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 8-9-10 décembre 1990. vol. 2, Liège, 283-285. Beyries, S. (1993b). Expérimentation archéologique et savoir-faire traditionnel: l’example de la découpe d’un cervidé, Techniques et Cultures 22: 53-79. Beyries, S. (1997). Ethnoarchéologie: un mode d’expérimentation, Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerrannéennes 6: 185-196. Beyries, S. (1999). Ethnoarchaeology: a Method of Experimentation, Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 14: 75-88. Beyries, S. and F. Audouin-Rouzeau, Eds. (2002). Le travail du cuir de la préhistoire à nos jours, XXIIe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Antibes, APDCA. Beyries, S. and E. Boëda (1983). Etude technologique et traces d’utilisation des éclats débordants de Corbehem, Pas-de-Calais, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 80: 275-279. Beyries, S. and M.-L. Inizan (1982). Typologie, ocre, fonction. Tailler! pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique II. Recent Progress in Microwear Studies. Tervuren: 313-322. Beyries, S. and V. Rots (2008). The contribution of ethnoarchaeological macro- and microscopic wear traces to the understanding of archaeological hide-working processes. Proceedings of the Congress “Prehistoric Technology: 40 years later. Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy”, Verona, Italy, 20-23 April 2005, 21-28. Beyries, S. and V. Rots (In press). Méthodes de reconstruction des procédés de traitement des peaux en préhistoire: Premières applications archéologiques. F. Audouze, J. Enloe and E. Zubrow, Eds. Unraveling Domesticity, Cambridge University Press. Billamboz, A. (1977). L’industrie du bois de cerf en Franche-Comté au Néolithique et au début de l’âge du Bronze, Gallia Préhistoire 20(1): 91-176.

Binder, D., G. Bourgeois, F. Benoist, et al. (1990). Identification de brai de bouleau (Betula) dans le Néolithique de Giribaldi (Nice, France) par la spectrométrie de masse, Revue de Archéométrie 14(37-42). Binford , L. R. (1973). Interassemblage Variability – the Mousterian and the « Functional » Argument. C. Renfrew, Ed. The Explanation of Culture Change. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press: 227-254. Binford, L. R. (1977). Forty-seven Trips: a Case Study in the Character of Archaeological Formation Processes. R. V. S. Wright, Ed. Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, evolution, and complexity. Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: 24-36. Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies, Journal of Archaeological Research 35: 255-273. Birket-Smith, K. (1929). The Caribou Eskimos: Material and Social life and their Cultural position. Copenhagen, Gyldeddanske Boghandel. Bocquet, A. (1984). Les poignards néolithiques de Charavines (Isère) dans le cadre de la civilisation Saône-Rhône, Etudes préhistoriques 9: 7-17. Bocquet, A. and A. Houot (1982). La vie au Néolithique. Charavines, un village au bord d’un lac, il y a 5.000 ans... Histoire et Archéologie 64. Boëda, E. (2008). Middle Palaeolithic bitumen use at Umm el Tlel around 70,000 BP, Antiquity 82(318): 853-861. Boeda, E., J. Connan, D. Dessort, et al. (1996). Bitumen as a hafting material on Middle Palaeolithic artefacts, Nature 380(6572): 336-338. Boëda, E., J. Connan and S. Muhesen (1998). Bitumen as Hafting Material on Middle Palaolithic Artifacts from the El Kown Basin, Syria. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. Bar-Yosef, Eds. Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. New York and London, Plenum Press: 181-204. Boeda, E., J. M. Geneste, C. Griggo, et al. (1999). A Levallois point embedded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): Hafting, projectiles and Mousterian hunting weapons, Antiquity 73(280): 394-402. Bokelmann, K. (1979). Rentierjäger am Gletscherrand in Schleswig-Holstein? Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zur Erforschung der Hamburger Kultur, Offa 36: 12-22. Bordes, F. (1950). Du poli particulier de certains silex taillés, L’anthropologie 54: 161-163. Bosinski, G. (1985). Der Neanderthaler und seine Zeit. Köln, Rheinland-Verlag GmbH. Bradley, R. and C. Clayton (1983). The influence of Flint Microstructure on the Formation of Microwear Polishes. G. d. G. Sieveking and M. H. Newcomer, Eds. The human uses of flint and chert. Proceedings of the fourth international flint symposium held at Brighton Polytechnic, 10-15 April 1983: 81-89. Brandt, S. A. (1996). The Ethnoarchaeology of Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia. Aspects of African Archaeology, Papers from the 10th Congress of the Panafrican Association for Prehistory and Related Studies, Harare, Zimbabwe, University of Zimbabwe Publications, 733-738.

REFERENCES

Brandt, S. A. and K. J. Weedman (1997). The Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working and Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopia in Broader Perspective. Papers of the XIIth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Kyoto, Shokado Book Sellers, 351-361. Brink, J. (1978a). Notes on the Occurrence of Spontaneous Retouch, Lithic Technology 7(31-33). Brink, J. (1978b). An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. Ottawa, Archaeological Survey of Canada. Broholm, H. C. (1926-1931). Nouvelles trouvailles du plus ancien âge de la pierre. Les trouvailles de Holmgaard et de Svaerdborg. Buisson, D. and A. Peltier (1993). 3.1. Fiches manches courbes en bois de cervidé à insertion longitudinale. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VI: Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc: 33-38. Büller, J. (1988). Handling, Hafting and Ochre Stains. S. Beyries, Ed. Industries Lithiques Tracéologie et Technologie. Oxford: 5-32. Burgess, R. J. and K. L. Kvamme (1978). A New Technique for the Measurement of Artifact Angles, American Antiquity 43: 482-486. Cahen, D. and J. Gysels (1983). Techniques et fonctions dans l’industrie lithique du Groupe de Blicquy (Belgique). Traces d’utilisation sur les Outils Néolithiques du Proche Orient. Table Ronde C.N.R.S. tenue à Lyon du 8 au 10 juin 1982, GIS - Maison de l’Orient, 37-52. Cahen, D., L. H. Keeley and F. L. Vannoten (1979). Stone Tools, Toolkits, and Human-Behavior in Prehistory, Current Anthropology 20(4): 661-683. Camps-Fabrer, H., Ed. (1982). L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le néolithique et l’âge des métaux. Deuxième réunion du groupe de travail n°3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique. Industrie de l’os néolithique et de l’âge des metaux 2, Editions du CNRS. Camps-Fabrer, H., Ed. (1985). L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le néolithique et l’âge des métaux. Troisième réunion du groupe de travail n°3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique. Industrie de l’os néolithique et de l’âge des metaux 3, Editions du CNRS. Camps-Fabrer, H. and D. Ramseyer (1993). 3.2. Fiches manches en bois de cervidé à insertion longitudinale, 3.4. Fiches manches en bois de cervidé à insertion transversale, 3.5. Fiche manches coudés à douille ou à tenon en bois de cerf, 3.6. Fiches manches en os rainurés latéralement. Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier VI: Eléments récepteurs. Treignes, Editions du Cedarc: 39-46, 69-82. Carneiro, R. L. (1979). Tree Felling with the Stone Ax: an Experiment carried out among the Yanomamö Indians of Southern Venezuela. C. Kramer, Ed. Ethno-archaeology. Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology. New York, Columbia University Press: 21-58. Caspar, J.-P. and D. Cahen (1987). Emmanchement des outils danubiens de Belgique: Données techniques et tracéologiques. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil:

229

manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 185-196. Caspar, J. P. (1988). Contribution à la tracéologie de l’industrie lithique du Néolithique ancien dans l’Europe Nord-occidentale, Université Catholique de Louvainla-Neuve. Caspar, J. P. and M. De Bie (1996). Preparing for the hunt in the Late Paleolithic camp at Rekem, Belgium, Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4): 437-460. Cauvin, J. (1968). Les outillages néolithiques de Byblos et du littoral libanais. Fouilles de Byblos IV. Paris, Maisonneuve. Cauvin, J. and D. Stordeur (1987). Quelques réflexions sur l’évolution préhistorique des emmanchements. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 331-336. Cauvin, M.-C. (1983). Les faucilles préhistoriques du Proche-Orient. Données morphologiques et fonctionelles, Paléorient 9(1): 63-80. Cauvin, M.-C., G. Deraprahamian and D. Helmer (1987). Grattoirs à pans coupés convergents de Mureybet (Syrie) du 8e millénaire: définition, essai de fabrication et emmanchement. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 257-268. Charters, S., R. P. Evershed and L. J. Goad (1993). Identification of an adhesive used to repair a Roman jar, Archaeometry 35(1): 91-101. Chase, P. (1991). Symbols and Palaeolithic Artifacts : Style, Standardization and the Imposition of Arbitrary Form, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 193-214. Christensen, M. (1998). Processus de formation et caractérisation physico-chimique des polis d’utilisation des outils en silex. Application à la technologie préhistorique de l’ivoire, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 95(2): 183-201. Christensen, M., T. Calligaro, S. Consigny, et al. (1998). Insight into the Usewear Mechanism of Archaeological Flints by Implantation of a Marker Ion and PIXE Analysis of Experimental Tools, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 136-138: 869-874. Christensen, M., G. Grime, M. Menu, et al. (1993). Usewear studies of flint tools with micropixe and microrbs, Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section B-Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 77(1-4): 530-536. Christensen, M. and P. Walter (1991). Physico-Chimie en tracéologie. Le cas des couteaux égyptiens. La Pierre Préhistorique. Actes du séminaire des 13 et 14 décembre 1990, Laboratoire de Recherche des Musées de France, 149-171. Christensen, M., P. Walter and M. Menu (1992). Usewear Characterisation of Prehistoric Flints with IBA, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 64: 488-493. Clark, J. D. (1950). Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Star Carr, Seamer, Scarborough, Yorkshire (Second Season 1950), Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 16: 109-129.

230

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Clark, J. D. (1954). Excavations at Star Carr. AN Early Meoslithic site at Seamer, near Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Clark, J. D. (1958). Some Stone Age wood-working tools in southern Africa, South African Archaeological Bulletin 13(52): 144-151. Clark, J. D. (1984). Counterflaking and the Manufacture of Mesoamerican Prismatic Blades, Lithic Technology 13(2): 52-61. Clark, J. D. and H. Kurashina (1981). A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and its Relevance for Archaeological Interpretation. R. Gould and M. B. Schiffer, Eds. Modern material culture: the archaeology of us. New York, Academic Press: 303-21. Clark, J. D. and M. W. Thompson (1953). The Groove and Splinter Technique of working antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe, The Prehistoric Society 6: 148-164. Clarke, D. L. (1936). The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. A Study of the Food-Gathering peoples of Northern Europe during the Early Post-Glacial period. New York, Greenwood Press. Collin, F. and P. Jardon-Giner (1993). Travail de la peau avec grattoirs emmanchés. Réflexions sur des bases expérimentales et ethnographiques. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 8-9-10 décembre 1990. vol. 2, Liège, ERAUL, 105-117. Connan, J., C. Breniquet and J. L. Huot (1996). Les objets bituminés de Tell el Oueili. Des témoins de la diversité des réseaux d’échanges commerciaux de l’Obeid 0 à l’Uruk récent. J. L. Huot, Ed. Oueili, Travaux de 19871989. Paris, ERC: 413-430. Connan, J. and O. Deschesne (1991). Le bitume dans l’antiquité, La Recherche 229: 152-159. Connan, J. and O. Deschesne (1992). Archaeological Bitumen: Identification, Origins, and Uses of an ancient Near Eastern Material. P. B. Vandiver, J. R. Druzik, G. S. Wheeler and I. C. Freestone, Eds. Material Issues in Art and Archaeology III. Pittsburgh, Materials Research Society: 683-720. Connan, J., A. Nissenbaum and D. Dessort (1995). Geochemical Study of Neolithic « bitumen »-coated objects of the Nahal Hemar Cave in the Dead Sea Area. J. Grimalt and C. Dorronsoro, Eds. Organic Geochemistry: Devlopment and Applications to Energy, Climate, Environment and Human History. Donostia-San Sebastion, AIGOA: 699-701. Coqueigniot, E. (1983). Analyse tracéologique d’une série de grattoirs et herminettes de Mureybet, Syrie (9ème – 7ème millénaires). Traces d’utilisation sur les outils Néolithique du Proche Orient. Table Ronde C.N.R.S. tenue à Lyon du 8 au 10 juin 1982, GIS - Maison de l’Orient Currey, J. D. (1979). Mechanical properties of bone tissues with greatly differing functions, Journal of Biomechanics 12: 210-219. d’Errico, F. and L. R. Backwell (2003). Possible evidence of bone tool shaping by Swartkrans early hominids, Journal of Archaeological Science 30(12): 1559-1576.

d’Errico, F., L. R. Backwell and L. Berger (2001a). Bone tool use in termite foraging by early hominids and its impact on our understanding of early hjominid behaviour, South African Journal of Science 97: 71-75. d’Errico, F., C. Henshilwood and P. Nilssen (2001b). An engraved bone fragment from c.70,000 year-old Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origin of symbolism and language, Antiquity 75(288): 309-318. De Bie, M. and J.-P. Caspar (2000). Rekem. A Federmesser Camp on the Meuse River Bank. Asse-Zellik & Leuven, Published by I.A.P. & Leuven University Press. De Heinzelin, J. (1973). L’industrie du site paléolithique de Maisières-canal, Institut royal des sciences naturelles de Belgique. Del Bene, T. A. (1979). Once upon a Striation: Current Models of Striation and Polish Formation. B. Hayden, Ed. Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. New York: 167-177. Del Bene, T. A. (1980a). Microscopic Damage Traces and the Manufacture Process: the Denali Complex Example, Lithic Technology 9(2): 34-35. Del Bene, T. A. (1980b). An X-ray Analysis of Depositional Polish, Lithic Technology 9(2): 36-37. Dibble, H. and M. C. Bernard (1980). A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle Measurement Techniques, American Antiquity 45: 857-865. Dickson, F. P. (1981). Australian Stone Hatchets. A Study in Design and Dynamics, Academic Press. Dockall, J. E. (1997). Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence, Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 321-331. Dominguez- Rodrigo, M., J. Serrallonga, J. Juan-Tresserras, et al. (2001). Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania), Journal of Human Evolution 40(4): 289-299. Dumont, J. (1982a). Interferometry and Microwear Analysis, Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2: 199-211. Dumont, J. (1982b). The Quantification of Microwear Traces: a new use for interferometry, World Archaeology 14: 206-217. Egloff, M. (1987). Emmanchements du Néolithique à l’Age du Bronze dans les palafittes d’Auvernier (lac de Neuchâtel). D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 229-245. Endlicher, G. and A. Tillmann (1997). Lime plaster as an adhesive for hafting Eighteenth-Dynasty flint sickles from Tell el Dab’a, eastern Nile Delta (Egypt), Archaeometry 39: 333-342. Evans, J. (1897). The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain. Ferring, C. (1975). The Aterian in North African Prehistory. F. Wendorf and A. E. Marks, Eds. Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. Dallas, Southern Methodist University Press: 113-126. Fischer, A., P. V. Hansen and P. Rasmussen (1984). Macro and Micro Wear Traces on Lithic Projectile Points, Journal of Danish Archaeology 3: 19-46.

REFERENCES

Flenniken, J. and J. Haggarty (1979). Trampling as an Agent in the Formation of Edge Damage: an Experiment in Lithic Technology, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13: 208-214. Fojud, R. and M. Kobusiewicz (1982). The Influence of Soluble Salts on the State of Preservation of Flint Surfaces and Wear-Traces. D. Cahen, Ed. Tailler ! pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique II. Recent Progress in Microwear Studies. Tervuren: 245-249. Friis-Johansen, K. (1918-1919). Une station du plus ancien âge de la pierre dans la Tourbière de Svaerdborg, Mémoires des Antiquités du Nord 241. Frison, G. C. (1968). A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools, American Antiquity 33(2): 149155. Fullagar, R., Ed. (1998). A Closer Look: Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools. Archaeological Methods Series. Sydney, Sydney University. Fullagar, R. L. K. (1991). The Role of Silica in Polish Formation, Journal of Archaeological Science 18(1): 1-24. Funke, H. (1969). Chemisch-analystische Untersuchungen verschiedener archäologische Funde. Hambourg, University of Hambourg. PhD. thesis. Gallagher, J. P. (1977). Contemporary Stone Tools in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology, Journal of Field Archaeology 4: 407-414. Gassin, B. (1996). Evolution socio-économique dans le Chasséen de la Grotte de l’Eglise supérieure (Var). Apport de l’analyse fonctionelle des industries lithiques. Paris, CNRS éditions. Gaudron, G. (1944). Le goudron végétal comme adhésif, Bulletin de la Société Préhistoriques Française 41: 156158. Geerts, A.-I. (1999). Typo-technologische analyse van de breukpatronen op de klingen van het oud-neolithicum te Vaux-et-Borset (Haspengouw-België), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Unpublished Ma thesis. Gendel, P. A. and L. Pirnay (1982). Microwear Analysis of Experimental Stone Tools: Further Test Results. D. Cahen, Ed. Tailler ! pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique II. Recent Progress in Microwear Studies. Tervuren: 251-265. Gero, J. M. (1978). Summary of Experiments to Duplicate Post-Excavational Damage to Tool Edges, Lithic Technology 7: 34. Giot, P. R. (1958a). Emmanchure pour petite hache polie draguée dans l’estuaire de l’Odet, Bulletin de la Société Préhistoriques Française 65: 269-271. Giot, P. R. (1958b). Emmanchure avec hache polie draguée dans l’estuaire du Légner (C. du N.), Bulletin de la Société Préhistoriques Française 65: 704-705. Glory, A. (1958). Débris de corde paléolithique à la grotte de Lascaux, Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 5: 135-169. Godelier, M. and J. Garanger (1973). Outils de pierre, outils d’acier chez les Baruya de Nouvelle-Guinée, L’Homme 13: 187-220.

231

Golson, J. (1977). Simple tools and complex technology. Agriculture and agricultural implements in the New Guinea Highlands. R. V. S. Wright, Ed. Stone tools as cultural markers. Change, evolution and complexity. Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: 154-161. Gould, R. A. (1978). The Anthropology of Human Residues, American Anthropologist 80: 815-835. Gould, R. A. (1980). Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press. Gould, R. A., D. A. Koster and A. H. L. Sontz (1971). The Lithic Assemblages of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia, American Antiquity 36: 149-169. Grace, R., I. D. G. Graham and M. H. Newcomer (1985). The Quantification of Microwear Polishes, World Archaeology 17(1): 112-120. Greep, S. J. (1987). Use of Bone, Antler and Ivory in the Roman and Medieval Periods. K. Starling and D. Watkinson, Eds. Archaeological Bone, Antler and Ivory. Occasional Papers. 5: 3-5. Groenman-van Waateringe (1992). The Impact of Man on the Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscape of the Netherlands from a general methodological aspect. B. Frenzel, Ed. Evaluation of Land Surfaces cleared from Forests by Prehistoric Man: 13-24. Guilaine, J. (1976). La Préhistoire française. II. Les civilisations néolithiques et protohistoriques de la France. Paris. Haesaerts, P. and J. de Heinzelin (1979). Le site Paléolithique de Maisières-Canal. Brugge. Hall, E. and L. Fullerton (1990). The Utqiagvik Excavations. Volume I : The 1981 Excavations at the Utqiagvik Archaeological Site, Barrow, Alaska. Barrow, Alaska. Hardy, B. L. (1999). Microscopic residue analysis of stone tools from the Middle Paleolithic site of Starosele. V. P. Chabai and K. Monigal, Eds. The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea, Vol. 2. Liège, ERAUL. 87: 179-196. Hardy, B. L. (2004). Neanderthal behaviour and stone tool function at the Middle Palaeolithic site of La Quina, France, Antiquity: 547-565. Hardy, B. L. and G. T. Garufi (1998). Identification of woodworking on stone tools through residue and use-wear analyses: Experimental results, Journal of Archaeological Science 25(2): 177-184. Hardy, B. L. and M. Kay (1999). Stone tool function at Starosele: combining residue and use-wear evidence. V. P. Chabai and K. Monigal, Eds. The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea, Vol. 2. Liège, ERAUL. 87: 197-209. Hayden, B. (1977). Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert. R. V. S. Wright, Ed. Stone tools as cultural markers: Change, evolution, and complexity. Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: 178-88. Hayden, B., Ed. (1979). Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. New York. Hayden, B. (1979a). Palaeolithic Reflections. Lithic Technology and Ethnographic Excavation among Australian Aborigines. Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

232

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Hayden, B., N. Franco and J. Spafford (1996). Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. G. H. Odell, Ed. Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. New York and London, Plenum Press: 9-45. Hayek, E. W. H., P. Krenmayr, H. Lohninger, et al. (1991). GC/MS and chemometrics in archaeometry, Fresenius’ Journal of Analytical Chemistry 340(3): 153-156. Healan, D. M. and J. M. Kerley (1984). Edge Damage Induced by Core Immobilization in Prismatic Blade Manufacture, Lithic Technology 13(1): 1-10. Hedges, R. E. M., P. B. Pettitt, C. Bronk Ramsey, et al. (1998). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 25, Archaeometry 40: 227239. Heider, K. G. (1967). Archaeological Assumption and Ethnographical Facts : a Cautionary Tale from New Guinea, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23 52-64. Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, C. W. Marean, et al. (2001). An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language, Journal of Human Evolution 41(6): 631-678. Heron, C., R. Evershed, L. Goad, et al. (1991). New approaches to the analysis of organic residues from archaeological remains. Archaeological Sciences 1989. Bradford Proceedings of the conference 1989, 332-339. Ho Ho Committee (1979). The Ho Ho Classification and Nomenclature Committee Report. B. Hayden, Ed. Lithic use-wear analysis. New York, Academic Press. Holdaway, S. (1989). Were There Hafted Projectile Points in the Mousterian?, Journal of Field Archaeology 16: 79-85. Holdsworth, P. (1976). Saxon Southampton: a New Review, Medieval Archaeology 20: 26-61. Humphrey, J. W., J. P. Oleson and A. N. Sherwood (1998). Greek and Roman Technology: A Sourcebook. Annotated Translations of Greek and Latin texts and documents. London and New York. Hurcombe, L. (1988). Some Criticisms and Suggestions in Response to Newcomer et al. 1986, Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 1-10. Hurcombe, L. (1992). Obsidian Use-Wear Analysis, Anthropologie 96(1): 179-185. Inizan, M. L., H. Roche and J. Tixier (1999). Avantages d’un traitement thermique pour la taille des roches siliceuses. Isaac, G. (1977). Squeezing blood from stones. R. V. S. Wright, Ed. Stone tools as cultural markers. Change, evolution and complexity. Canberra, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: 5-12. Jardon-Giner, P. and D. Sacchi (1994). Traces d’usage et indices de réaffûtages et d’emmanchements sur des grattoirs magdaléniens de la grotte Gazel à SallèlesCabardes (Aude – France), L’Anthropologie 98(2-3): 427-446. Jelinek (1982). The Tabun Cave and Palaeolithic Man in the Levant, Science 216(4553): 1369-1375.

Juel Jensen, H. (1982). A Preliminary Analysis of Blade Scrapers from Ringkloster, a Danish Late Mesolithic site. D. Cahen, Ed. Tailler ! pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique II. Recent Progress in Microwear Studies. Tervuren: 323-327. Juel Jensen, H. (1994). Flint tools and Plant working. Hidden traces of stone age technology. A use wear study of some Danish Mesolithic and TRB implements, Aarhus University Press. Julien, M., P. Vaughan and D. Lavallee (1987). Armes et outils emmanchés à Télarmachay. D. Stodeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 287296. Kaminska, J., E. Mycielska-Dowgiallo and K. Szymczak (1993). Postdepositional Changes on Surfaces of Flint Artifacts as observed under a Scanning Electron Microscope. P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, Eds. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 8-9-10 décembre 1990. vol. 2. Liège, ERAUL 50: 467-475. Kamminga, J. (1978). Journey into the Microcosmos. A Functional Analysis of Certain Classes of Prehistoric Australian Stone Tools, University of Sydney. Unpublished PhD thesis. Kamminga, J. (1979). The Nature of Use-Polish and Abrasive Smoothing on Stone Tools. B. Hayden, Ed. Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. New York: 143-157. Kamminga, J. (1982). Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools, University of Queensland Anthropology Museum. Keeley, L. H. (1974a). Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies - Critical Review, World Archaeology 5(3): 323-336. Keeley, L. H. (1974b). Methodology of Microwear Analysis - Comment On Nance, American Antiquity 39(1): 126128. Keeley, L. H. (1978). Preliminary Microwear Analysis of the Meer Assemblage. F. Van Noten, Ed. Les Chasseurs de Meer. Brugge: 73-86. Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a Microwear Analysis. Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press. Keeley, L. H. (1982). Hafting and Retooling - Effects On the Archaeological Record, American Antiquity 47(4): 798-809. Keeley, L. H. (1987). Hafting and “Retooling” at Verberie. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil. Manches et emmanchements préhistoriques, Maison de l’Orient: 89-96. Keeley, L. H. and M. H. Newcomer (1977). Micro-Wear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools - Test Case, Journal of Archaeological Science 4(1): 29-62. Kimball, L., P. Allen, J. Kimball, et al. (1998). The Analysis of Microwear Polishes with the Atomic Force Microscope. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlí, Italia, 8/14 September 1996, 1121-1132.

REFERENCES

Kimura, B., S. A. Brandt, B. L. Hardy, et al. (2001). Analysis of DNA from Ethnoarchaeological Stone Scrapers, Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 45-53. Knutsson, K. (1988). Patterns of Tool Use. Scanning Electron Microscopy of Experimental Quartz Tools. Uppsala, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Knutsson, K. and R. Hope (1984). The Application of Acetate Peels in Lithic Usewear Analysis, Archaeometry 26(1): 49-61. Korobkova, G. (1993). The Technology and Function of Tools in the Context of Regional Adaptations: A Case Study of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of the Northwestern Black Sea Region. O. Soffer and N. D. Praslov, Eds. From Kostenki to Clovis. New York: 159172. Korobkova, G. F. (1981). Ancient Reaping Tools and their Productivity in the Light of Experimental Trace Wear Analysis. P. L. Kohl, Ed. The Bronze Age Civilization of Central Asia. New York, Armonic: 325-349. KoπЬцοв, Л. В. (1989). Meзолит СССР, Археология СССР. Москва, Издательство. Kukan, J. (1978). A Technological and Stylistic Study of Microliths from certain Levantine Epi-Palaeolithic Assemblages, University of Toronto. PhD thesis. Langley, M. C., C. Clarkson and S. Ulm (2008). Behavioural Complexity in Eurasion Neanderthal Populations: a Chronological Examination of the Archaeological Evidence, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(3): 289-307. Lauwers, R. (1985). Découverte d’un vaste campement du Paléolithique final dans la vallée de la Meuse, Belgique, L’Anthropologie 89: 557-559. Lee, R. B. (1984). The Dobe !Kung, Holt Rinehart Winston. Lee, R. B. and R. Daly (1999). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, Cambridge University Press. Lee, R. B. and I. De Vore, Eds. (1968). Man the Hunter. Chicago, Aldine. Lee, R. B. and I. De Vore (1976). Kalahari HunterGatherers. Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors, Harvard University Press. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1943). Evolution et technique: l’homme et la matière. Paris, Albin Michel. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1983). Une tête de sagaie à armature de lamelle de silex à Pincevent (Seine et Marne), Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 80: 154-156. Leroi-Gourhan, A. and J. Allain (1979). Lascaux Inconnu. Paris, CNRS. Levi-Sala, I. (1986a). Experimental Replication of PostDepositional Surface Modification on Flint. L. Owen and G. Unrath, Eds. Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools: 103-109. Levi-Sala, I. (1986b). Use Wear and Post Depositional Surface Modification: A Word of Caution, Journal of Archaeological Science 13(3): 229-244. Levi-Sala, I. (1988). Processes of Polish Formation on Flint Tool Surface. S. Beyries, Ed. Industries lithiques. Tracéologie et technologie: 83-97.

233

Levi-Sala, I. (1993). Use-wear Traces: Processes of Development and Post-depositional Alterations. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 8-9-10 décembre 1990, vol. 2 Liège, ERAUL, 401-415. Levi-Sala, I. (1996). A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. Oxford. Lombard, M. (2005). Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZuluNatal, South Africa: a multianalytical approach, Journal of Human Evolution 48(3): 279-300. Lombard, M. (2007). The gripping nature of ochre: The association of ochre with howiesons poort adhesives and later stone age mastics from South Africa, Journal of Human Evolution 53: 406-419. Lombard, M. (2008). Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort through the microscope: micro-residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, South Africa, Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 26-41. Lombard, M. and J. Pargeter (2008). Hunting with Howiesons Poort segments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation of archaeological tools, Journal of Archaeological Science 35(9): 2523-2531. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. and L. Kooistra (2006). Wooden artefacts. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans and P. F. B. Jongste, Eds. Schipluiden. A Neolithic settlement on the Dutch North Sea Coast c. 3500 cal BC. Leiden, Leiden University: 225-252. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., J. F. S. Oversteegen and A. Van Gijn (2001). Artefacten van been, gewei en tand. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Ed. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.). Amersfoort: 285-324. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., C. E. Vermeeren and A. M. I. Van Waveren (2001). Artefacten van hout en vezels. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, Ed. Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500-5000 v. Chr.). Amersfoort: 379-418. Loy, T. H. (1983). Prehistoric Blood Residues: Detection on Tool Surfaces and Identification of Species of Origin, Science 220: 1269-1271. Loy, T. H. (1987). Residues and Microscopic Remains. Recent Advances in Blood Residue Analysis. W. R. Ambrose and J. M. J. Mummery, Eds. Archaeometry: Further Australian Studies. Canberra, The Australian National University: 57-65. Loy, T. H. (1993). The Artifact as Site: an Example of the Biomolecular Analysis of Organic Residues on Prehistoric Tools, World Archaeology 25: 44-63. Luedtke, B. E. (1986). An Experiment in Natural Fracture, Lithic Technology 15(2): 55-60. Luedtke, B. E. (1992). An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology, University of California. Lundstrom-Baudais, K. (1986). Etude paléoethnobotanique de la station III de Clairvaux. P. Pétrequin, Ed. Les sites littoraux Néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-lacs (Jura). I. Problématique générale. L’exemple de la station III: 311-391.

234

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Lynch, T. F. (1980). Guitarrero Cave. Early Man in the Andes. New York, Academic Press. MacGregor, A. (1985). Bone, antler, ivory and horn: the technology of skeletal materials since the Roman period. London. MacGregor, A. and J. D. Currey (1983). Mechanical properties as conditioning factors in the bone and antler industry of the 3rd to the 13th century AD, Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 71-77. Mallet, N. (1992). Le Grand-Pressigny. Ses relations avec la civilisation Saône-Rhône. Mania, D. and G. A. Cubuk (1977). Altpaläolithische Knochenspitzen vom Typ Bilzingsleben-Hélin, Zeitschrift für Archäologie 11: 87-92. Mania, D. and V. Toepfer (1973). Königsaue: Gliederung, Ökologie und mittelpaläolithische Funde der letzten Eiszeit, Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle 26. Mania, U. (1995). The Utilisation of Large Mammal Bones in Bilzingsleben – a Special Variant of Middle Pleistocene Man’s Relationship to his Environment. H. Ullrich, Ed. Man and Environment in the Palaeolithic: 239-246. Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1983). Scanning Electron Microscopy of Dry Hide Working Tools: the Role of Abrasives and Humidity in Microwear Polish Formation, Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 223230. Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1984). Préhistoire de Patagonie: l’Industrie Nivel II de la Province de Santa Cruz (Argentine): Technologie lithique et traces d’utilisation. Oxford. Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1986). Microscopie du matériel lithique préhistorique. Traces d’utilisation, altérations naturelles, accidentelles et technologiques. Exemples de Patagonie. Paris, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Mansur, M. E. (1982). Microwear Analysis of Natural and Use striations: New Clues to the Mechanisms of Striation Formation, Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2: 213-233. Mazza, P. P. A., F. Martini, B. Sala, et al. (2006). A new Palaeolithic discovery: tar-hafted stone tools in a European Mid-Pleistocene bone-bearing bed, Journal of Archaeological Science 33(9): 1310-1318. McBrearty, S., L. Bishop, T. Plummer, et al. (1998). Tools underfoot: Human trampling as an agent of lithic artifact edge modification, American Antiquity 63(1): 108129. Mellaart, J. (1964). Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, third preliminary report, 1963, Anatolian Studies 14: 39-119. Mellaart, J. (1970). Excavations at Hacilar. Edinburgh. Menghin, O. (1927). Die mesolithische Kulturentwicklung in Europa, Romisch-Germanisches Kommizion Bericht 17: 154. Mercier and Seguin (1939). Propagation d’Est en Ouest d’une technique préhistorique, Bulletin de la Société Préhistoriques Française 37: 201-218. Mikov, V. (1959). The prehistoric mound at Karanovo, Archaeology 12: 88-97.

Moss, E. (1983a). Some Comments on Edge Damage as a Factor in Functional Analysis of Stone Artifacts, Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 231-242. Moss, E. (1983b). The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements. Pincevent and Pont d’Ambon: Two Case Studies from the French Final Paleolithic. Oxford. Moss, E. (1986a). New Research on Burin Function Suggests a Reconsideration of Functional Typology. S. N. Colcutt, Ed. The Palaeolithic of Britain and its nearest neighbors: Recent Trends, University of Sheffield: 95-97. Moss, E. (1986b). What Microwear Analysts look at, Early Man News 9/10/11: 91-96. Moss, E. (1987). A Review of “Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests”, Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 473-481. Moss, E. and M. H. Newcomer (1982). Reconstruction of Tool Use at Pincevent: Microwear and Experiments. D. Cahen, Ed. Tailler ! pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique II. Recent Progress in Microwear Studies. Tervuren: 289-312. Movius, H. L. (1950). A Wooden Spear of Third Interglacial Age from Lower Saxony, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6: 139-142. Müller-Beck, H. (1965). Seeberg-Burgäschisee-Sud. Teil 5 – Holzgeräte und Holzverarbeitung. Bern, Verlag Stämpfli. Müller, S. (1917). Archaeologisk Udbytte af Mosearbeidet i Krigsaaret 1917, Aarboger: 149. Nance, J. D. (1971). Functional Interpretations from Microscopic Analysis, American Antiquity 36: 361-366. Newcomer, M. H. (1976). Spontaneous Retouch. H. G. Engelen, Ed. Second International Symposium in Flint. Maastricht, Nederlandse Geologische Vereniging: 62-64. Newcomer, M. H., R. Grace and R. Unger-Hamilton (1986). Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests, Journal of Archaeological Science 13: 203-217. Newcomer, M. H., R. Grace and R. Unger-Hamilton (1988). Microwear Methodology: A Reply to Moss, Hurcombe and Bamforth, Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 25-33. Nissen, K. and M. Dittemore (1974). Ethnographic Data and Wear pattern Analysis: a Study of Socketed Eskimo Scrapers, Tebiwa 17: 67-88. O’Connor, T. P. (1987). On the Structure, Chemistry and Decay of Bone, Antler and Ivory. K. Starling and D. Watkinson, Eds. Archaeological Bone, Antler and Ivory: 6-8. Oakley, K. P., P. Andrews, L. H. Keeley, et al. (1977). A Reappraisal of the Clacton Spearpoint, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43: 13-30. Odell, G. H. (1975). Micro-Wear in Perspective - Sympathetic Response to Keeley, L., World Archaeology 7(2): 226240. Odell, G. H. (1977). The Application of Micro-wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems, and Functional Reconstructions. Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University, PhD thesis.

REFERENCES

Odell, G. H. (1978). Préliminaires d’une analyse fonctionelle des pointes microlithiques de Bergumermeer (Pays-Bas), Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 75(2): 37-49. Odell, G. H. (1980). Toward a More Behavioral-Approach to Archaeological Lithic Concentrations, American Antiquity 45(3): 404-431. Odell, G. H. (1981). The Mechanics of Use-breakage of Stone Tools: some Testable Hypotheses, Journal of Field Archaeology 8: 197-209. Odell, G. H. (1987). Functional-Analysis of Use-Wear On a Regional Scale (Illinois), Anthropologie 91(2): 381-398. Odell, G. H. (1988). Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis, American Anthropologist 90(2): 335-356. Odell, G. H. (1994). Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North-American Midcontinent - Examples From Illinois, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13(1): 51-73. Odell, G. H. (1996a). Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley. From Hunter-Gatherer Camps to Agricultural Villages. Ann Arbor, MI. Odell, G. H. (1996b). Economizing Behavior and the Concept of « Curation ». G. H. Odell, Ed. Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory. New York and London: 51-80. Odell, G. H. and F. Cowan (1986). Experiments With Spears and Arrows On Animal Targets, Journal of Field Archaeology 13(2): 195-212. Odell, G. H. and F. Odell-Vereecken (1980). Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by ‘Blind Tests’: the Low Power approach, Journal of Field Archaeology 7: 87-120. Olausson, D. (1983). Lithic Technological Analysis of the Thin-butted flint axe, Acta Archaeologica 53. Owen, L. R. and G. Unrath (1989). Microtraces d’usures dues à la préhension, l’Anthropologie 93: 673-688. Ozol, M. A. (1963). Alkali reactivity of cherts and stratigraphy and petrology of cherts and associated limestones of the Onondaga formation of central and western New York, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Palsi, S. (1920). Ein steinzeitlicher Moorfund, Finska Fornm. Fören. Tidskr 28. Pawlik, A. (1996). Licht und rasterelektronenmikroskopische Untersuchungen an geschäfteten Steingeräten aus Burgäschisee-Süd, Spuren der Jagd – Die Jagd nach Spuren. Pétrequin, A. M. and P. Pétrequin (1988). Le Néolithique des lacs. Préhistoire de lacs de Chalain et de Clairvaux (4000-2000 av. J.-C.). Paris, Editions Errance. Pétrequin, P. (1986). Les sites littoraux Néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-lacs (Jura). I. Problématique générale de la station III. Paris, Editions de la maison des sciences de l’homme. Pétrequin, P. and A. M. Pétrequin (1993). Ecologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie). Paris, CNRS éditions.

235

Pion, G. (1987). Andouiller de cerf travaillé pour une fonction d’emmanchement de l’abri de La Fru (Savoie), fouilles G. Pion. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 151-152. Plisson, H. (1982). Analyse fonctionelle de 95 micro-grattoirs «Tourassiens», Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2: 279-287. Plisson, H. (1983). De la conservation des micro-polis d’utilisation, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 80: 74-77. Plisson, H. (1985a). Etude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique, Université de Paris I. Unpublished PhD thesis: 357. Plisson, H. (1985b). The Contribution of Traceology to the Localization of Activity and Occupation Areas, Anthropologie 89(4): 473-478. Plisson, H. (1985c). Quels soins prendre des outillages lithiques pour l’analyse fonctionnelle?, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 82: 99-101. Plisson, H. (1986). Altération des micropolis d’usage: quelques expériences complémentaires. L. Owen and G. Unrath, Eds. Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools: 111-116. Plisson, H. (1987). L’emmanchement dans l’habitation n°1 de Pincevent. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 75-88. Plisson, H. and V. Beugnier (2007). Usages techniques et valeur symbolique des poignards pressigniens The Arkeotek Journal 1(2): [electronic publication]. Plisson, H. and S. Beyries (1998). Pointes ou outils triangulaires ? Données fonctionnelles dans le Moustérien Levantin, Paléorient 24(1): 5-16. Plisson, H. and M. Mauger (1988). Chemical and Mechanical Alteration of Microwear Polishes: an Experimental Approach, Helinium 28(1): 3-16. Pryor, J. H. (1988). The Effects of Human Trample Damage on Lithics: a Consideration of Crucial Variables, Lithic Technology 17(1): 45-50. Ramseyer, D. (1985). Pièces emmanchées en os et en bois de cervidés. Découvertes Néolithiques récentes du Canton de Fribourg, Suisse occidentale. H. CampsFabrer, Ed. L’industire en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Age des Métaux. Aix-en-Provence: 194-211. Ramseyer, D. (1987). Emmanchements de l’outillage lithique néolithique de quelques stations littorales du canton de Fribourg (Suisse occ.). D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 211218. Reed, R. (1972). Ancient Skins, Parchments and Leathers. London and New York, Seminar Press. Regert, M. (1996). Les composés organiques en préhistoire: Nouvelles approches analytiques. Paris, Université de Paris X. PhD thesis.

236

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Regert, M., J.-M. Delacorte, M. Menu, et al. (1998). Identification of Neolithic Hafting Adhesives from Two Lake Dwellings at Chalain (Jura, France), Ancient Biomolecules 2(1): 81-96. Ricq-de-Bouard, M. (1996). Pétrographie et sociétés néolithiques en France méditerranéenne. L’outillage en pierre polie, CNRS éditions: 61-67. Rigaud, A. (1977). Analyses typologiques et technologiques des grattoirs magdaléniens de la Garenne à SaintMarcel (Indre), Gallia Préhistoire 20(1): 1-43. Rodon Borras, T. (1990). Chemical Processes of Cleaning in Microwear Studies: Conditions and Limits of Attack. Application to Archaeological Sites. The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mithic Use-Wear Analysis, 15th-17th February 1989, Uppsala, Sweden, Uppsala, 179-184. Rosenfeld, A. (1971). The Examination of Use Marks on Some Magdalenian End Scrapers, The British Museum Quarterly(35): 176-182. Rots, V. (1996). Gebruikssporenonderzoek op de lithische artefacten van het site te Zonhoven-Molenheide 2. Aanvullend experimenteel onderzoek, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Unpublished Ma thesis. Rots, V. (2002a). Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: Possibilities and Limitations of Macro- and Microscopic Approaches, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, PhD thesis. Rots, V. (2002b). Bright Spots and the Question of Hafting, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113: 61-71. Rots, V. (2002c). Are Tangs Morphological Adaptations in View of Hafting? Macro- and microscopic wear analysis on a selection of tanged burins from MaisièresCanal, Notae Praehistoricae 114: 61-69. Rots, V. (2003). Towards an understanding of hafting: the macro- and microscopic evidence, Antiquity 77(298): 805-815. Rots, V. (2005). Wear traces and the interpretation of stone tools, Journal of Field Archaeology 30(1): 61-73. Rots, V. (2008). Hafting and raw materials from animals. Guide to the identification of hafting traces on stone tools, Anthropozoologica 43(1): 43-66. Rots, V. (2009). The functional analysis of the Mousterian and Micoquian assemblages of Sesselfelsgrotte, Germany. Tool use and Hafting in the European Late Middle Paleolithic, Quartär 56: 37-66. Rots, V. (2010-In Press). Un tailleur et ses traces. Traces microscopiques de production: programme expérimental et potentiel interprétatif, Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Etudes Géologiques et Archéologiques. Les Chercheurs de la Wallonie. Rots, V. (In prep). Functional analysis of Level IIa of Biache-St-Vaast. Rots, V. and D. De Loecker (In prep.). Functional analysis of site K at Maastricht-Belvédère. Rots, V., L. Pirnay, P. Pirson, et al. (2006). Blind tests shed light on possibilities and limitations for identifying stone tool prehension and hafting, Journal of Archaeological Science 33(7): 935-952. Rots, V., D. Stapert and L. Johanssen (2003). De Cheddaren Creswell-spitsen van Zeijen (Dr.): ‘projectielen’ of ‘messen’?, Paleo-Aktueel 13: 24-29.

Rots, V., D. Stapert and L. Johanssen (2005). Spitsen van Siegerswoude (Fr.), Emmerhout (Dr.) en Luttenberg (OV.): gebruikssporenonderzoek, Paleo-Aktueel 14-15: 11-15. Rots, V. and P. Van Peer (2006). Early evidence of complexity in lithic economy: core-axe production, hafting and use at Late Middle Pleistocene site 8-B-11, Sai Island (Sudan), Journal of Archaeological Science 33(3): 360371. Rots, V. and P. Van Peer (Submitted). Aspects of Tool Production, Use and Hafting in Palaeolithic industries from Northeast Africa. Rots, V. and B. S. Williamson (2004). Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: the contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence, Journal of Archaeological Science 31(9): 1287-1299. Rule, P. and J. Evans (1985). The Relationship of Morphological Variation to Hafting Techniques among Paleoindian Endscrapers at the Shawnee Minisink Site. C. McNett, Ed. Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania. New York, Academic Press: 211-220. Rust, A. (1943). Die alt- und mittelsteinzeitlichen Funde von Stellmoor. Neumunster, Karl Wachholtz Verlag. Rydbeck, O. (1929). Ornerad skafthålsyra av hjorthorn funnen I Höganäs, Fornvännen 24: 129. Sainty, J. (1982). La faucille Néolithique à éléments en silex. Etude expérimentale, Cahiers alsaciens d’archéologie, d’art et d’histoire 25: 5-10. Sala, R., S. Giralt, A. Olle, et al. (1998). The Process of Wear Formation. A Rheological Approach. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlí, Italia, 8/14 September 1996, 1133-1141. Saraun, G. F. L. (1903). En Stenalders Boplads i Maglemose ved Mullerup, Aarboger 148. Schibler, J. (1981). Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Bern, Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Bern, herausgegeben vom Archäologischen Dienst des Kantons Bern, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag. Schibler, J. (1997). Knochen- und Geweihartefacte. J. Schibler and e. al., Eds. Okonomie und Okologie neolithischer und bronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee. Zürich und Egg: 122-219. Schiffer, M. B. (1972). Archaeological Context and Systemic Context, American Antiquity 37: 156-65. Schiffer, M. B. (1978). Methodological Issues in Ethnoarchaeology. R. A. Gould, Ed. Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press: 229-248. Schmalz, R. F. (1960). Flint and the Patination of Flint Artifacts, The Prehistoric Society 3: 44-49. Schmid, E. (1968). Beindrechsler, Hornschnitzer und Leimsieder im römischen Augst. E. Schmid, L. Berger and P. Bürgin, Eds. Provincialia. Festschrift für Rudolf Laur-Belart. Basel: 185-197. Schreurs, J. (1992). The Michelsberg site MaastrichtKlinkers: a functional interpretation, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 25: 173-188. Schutt, J. A. (1979). Post-Depositional Edge Damage on Lithic Artifacts. Archaeological Investigation in

REFERENCES

Cochitit Reservoir, New Mexico. J. V. Biella and R. C. Chapman. Albuquerque, New Mexico, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico. Schwantes, G. (1934). Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins 1. Schwartz, M. and D. Hollander (2000). Annealing, Distilling, Reheating and Recycling: Bitumen Processing in the Ancient Near East, Paléorient 26(2): 83-91. Schweingruber, F. H. (1965). Strukturanalyse der neolitischen Axtholme von Burgäschisee Sud. Teil 5: Holzgeräte und Holzbearbeitung. Schweingruber, F. H. (1975). Das Holz als Rohstoff in der Urgeschichte, Helvetia Archaeologica 21: 2-15. Semenov, S. A. (1964). Prehistoric Technology. An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London, Cory, Adams and Mackay. Shanks, O. C., R. Bonnichsen, A. T. Vella, et al. (2001). Recovery of Protein and DNA Trapped in Stone Tool Microcracks, Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 965-972. Shea, J., A. Marks and J.-M. Geneste (1998). Commentaires sur l’article de H. Plisson et S. Beyries « Pointes ou outils triangulaires ? Données fonctionnelles dans le Moustérien Levantin », Paléorient 24(1): 17-24. Shea, J. J. (1987). On Accuracy and Relevance in Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Lithic Technology 16(2-3): 44-50. Shea, J. J. (1988a). Spear Points from the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant, Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 441456. Shea, J. J. (1988b). Methodological considerations affecting the choice of analytical techniques in lithic use-wear analysis: tests, results and application. S. Beyries, Ed. Industries Lithiques. Tracéologie et technologie: 65-82. Shea, J. J. (1990). A Further Note on Mousterian Spear Points, Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 111-114. Shea, J. J. and J. D. Klenck (1993). An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Trampling on the Results of Lithic Microwear analysis, Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 175-194. Shott, M. (1986). Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination, Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15-52. Shott, M. (1995). How much is a scraper? Curation, Use Rates, and the Formation of Scraper Assemblages, Lithic Technology 20: 53-72. Sillitoe, P. (1979). Stone versus Steel, Mankind 12: 151-161. Singer, R., J. Wymer, B. Gladfelter, et al. (1973). Excavation of the Clactonian Industry at the Golf Course, Clactonon-Sea, Essex, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39 6-74. Šmit, Ž., G. Grime, S. Petru, et al. (1999). Microdistribution and Composition of Usewear Polish on Prehistoric Stone Tools, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 150: 565-570. Šmit, Ž., G. Grime, T. Vidmar, et al. (1998). Usewearinduced Deposition on Prehistoric Flint Tools, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 140: 209-216. Sobolik, K. D. (1996). Lithic organic residue analysis: An example from the southwestern archaic, Journal of

237

Field Archaeology 23(4): 461-469. Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio and D. C. Hyland (2000). The « Venus » Figurines. Textiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Palaeolithic, Current Anthropology 41(4): 511-537. Stapert, D. (1976). Some Natural Surface Modifications on Flint in the Netherlands, Palaeohistoria 18: 7-42. Stewart, H. (1984). Cedar. Tree of Life to the Northwest Coast Indians. Vancouver/Toronto, Douglas & McIntyre. Stordeur, D., Ed. (1987a). La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques, Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon. Stordeur, D. (1987b). Manches et emmanchements préhistoriques: quelques propositions préliminaires. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 11-34. Symens, N. (1982). Gebruikssporenanalyse op artefacten van de Magdaleniaan nederzetting te Verberie, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Unpublished Ma. Thesis. Symens, N. (1986). A functional analysis of selected stone artifacs from the Magdalenian site of Verberie, Journal of Field Archaeology 13(1): 213-222. Texier, P. J. (1981). Désilification des silex taillés, Quaternaria 23: 159-169. Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany, Nature 385: 807-810. Thieme, H. and S. Veil (1985). Neue Untersuchungen zum eemzeitlichen Elefanten-Jagdplatz Laehringen, LDKR, Die Kunde N.F. 36: 11-58. Tillet, T. (1995). Recherches sur l’Atérien du sahara méridional (bassins Tchadien et de Taoudenni): position, chrono-stratigraphique, définition et étude comparative. L’homme méditerranéen, Mélanges offerts à Gabriel Camps Professeur émérite de l’université de Provence, P.U.P.: 29-56. Tindale, N. B. (1983). On Palaeolithic Implements from Northern Tibet, Current Anthropology 24(2): 246-248. Tixier, J. (1967). Procédés d’analyse et questions de terminologie concernant l’étude des ensembles industriels du Paléolithique récent et de l’Epipaléolithique dans l’Afrique du Nord-Ouest. N. W. Bishop and J. D. Clark, Eds. Background to Evolution in Africa, University of Chicago Press: 771-820. Tomaskova, S. (2000). The Nature of Difference. History and lithic use-wear at two Upper Palaeolithic sites in Central Europe. Toth, N., J. D. Clark and G. Ligabue (1992). The Last Stone Axe Makers, Scientific American 267(1): 88-93. Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. H. Odell, et al. (1974). Experimentation in the Formation of Edge-damage: a New Approach to Lithic Analysis, Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 171-196. Unger-Hamilton, R. (1984). The Formation of Use-Wear Polish On Flint, Beyond the Deposit Versus Abrasion Controversy, Journal of Archaeological Science 11(1): 91-98.

238

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Unger-Hamilton, R. (1988). Method in Microwear Analysis. Prehistoric Sickles and Other Stone Tools from Arjourne, Syria. Oxford. Unger-Hamilton, R. (1989). The Epi-Palaeolithic Southern Levant and the Origins of Cultivation, Current Anthropology 30: 88-103. Unger-Hamilton, R., R. Grace, R. Miller, et al. (1987). Drill bits from Abu Salabikh, Iraq. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 269-285. Unrath, G. (1987). The Burins from Imingmak: how to use Thumbnail sized Tools. D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 145-146. Unrath, G., L. Owen, A. Van Gijn, et al. (1986). An Evaluation of Use-wear Studies: a Multi-Analyst Approach, Early Man News 9/10/11: 117-175. Van Gijn, A. (1990). The Wear and Tear of flint. Principles of Functional Analysis applied to Dutch Neolithic assemblages, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22, Leiden. Van Gijn, A. (2008). Toolkits and technological choices at the Middle Neolithic site of Schipluiden, The Netherlands. Proceedings of the Congress “Prehistoric Technology: 40 years later. Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy”, Verona, Italy, 20-23 April 2005, 217225. Van Gijn, A. and J. Boon (2006). Birch bark tar. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans and P. F. B. Jongste, Eds. Schipluiden. A Neolithic settlement on the Dutch North Sea Coast c. 3500 cal BC. Leiden, Leiden University: 261-266. Van Peer, P., V. Rots and P. M. Vermeersch (2008). A Wasted Effort at the Quarry. Analysis and Interpretation of an MSA lanceolate point from Taramsa-8, Egypt, Paleoanthropology 2008: 234-250. Vaughan, P. (1985). Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. Vaughan, P. (1987). Positive and Negative Evidence for Hafting on Flint Tools from various Periods (Magdalenian through Bronze Age). D. Stordeur, Ed. La main et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Lyon, Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen: 135144. Vaughan, P. and H. Plisson (1986). Comment présenter les données tracéologiques? L. R. Owen and G. Unrath, Eds. Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies: 177-182. Vayson, A. (1918-1919). Faucille Préhistorique de Solférino. Etude Comparative, Mémoires Originaux, L’Anthropologie 29: 393-422. Villa, P. (1991). Middle Pleistocene prehistory in southwestern Europe: the state of our knowledge and ignorance, Journal of Anthropological Research 47: 193-217.

Vogt, E. (1949). The Birch as a Source of Raw Material during the Stone Age, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15: 50-51. Voruz, J.-L. (1984). Outillage osseux et dynamique industriel dans le Néolithique jurassien. Lausanne, Bibliothèque Historique Vaudoise. Voruz, J. L. (1997). L’outillage en os et en bois de cerf de Chalain 3. P. Pétrequin, Ed. Les sites littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-lacs et de Chalain (Jura), III, Chalain station 3, 3200-2900 av. J.-C. Paris, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. 2: 467-510. Wadley, L. (2005). Putting ochre to the test: replication studies of adhesives that may have been used for hafting tools in the Middle Stone Age, Journal of Human Evolution 49(5): 587-601. Wadley, L., B. Williamson and M. Lombard (2004). Ochre in hafting in Middle Stone Age southern Africa: a practical role, Antiquity 78(301): 661-675. Warren, S. H. (1923). Sub-soil pressure flaking, Proceedings Geologists’ Association 34: 153-175. Watson, V. D. (1995). Simple and Significant : Stone Tool Production in Highland New Guinea, Lithic Technology 20(2): 89-99. Weedman, K. (2000). An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Stone Scrapers among the Gamo People of Southern Ethiopia, University of Florida. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Weedman, K. J. (2006). An ethnoarchaeological study of hafting and stone tool diversity among the Gamo of Ethiopia, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(3): 189-238. Wengler, L. (1997). La transition du Moustérien à l’Atérien, L’Anthropologie 101: 448-481. Wilmsen, E. N. (1968). Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts, American Antiquity 33: 156-161. Winiarska-Kabacinska (1988). Examination of hafting traces on end-scrapers from the site of Wojnowo “a”, concentration III/75 (western Poland). S. Beyries, Ed. Industries Lithiques Tracéologie et Technologie. Oxford: 47-52. Witthoft, J. (1958). Indian Methods of Skin Dressing and Tanning, Ohio Archaeologist 8(3): 94-99. Wyss, R. (1973). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in der Jungsteinzeit. Bern. Yamada, S. (1993). The Formation Process of “use-wear polishes”. Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque international de Liège, 8-9-10 décembre 1990, vol. 2, Liège, ERAUL, 433-445. Żurowski, K. (1974). Zmiekczanie poroży i kości stosowane przez wytwórcóc c starożytności i we wczesnym średniowieczu, Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici, Archaeologia 4: 3-23.

PLATES

Pl. 1: natural flint surface of exp. 17/11 (200x)

Pl. 2: natural flint surface of exp. 17/12 (200x)

Pl. 3: light scarring (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x)

Pl. 4: considerable scarring (ED12) on the dorsal medial fracture edge of the distal part of exp. 1/2 (12x)

240

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 5: scalar scar (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 10/13 (25x)

Pl. 6: trapezoidal scars (ED1) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/1C (prehension) (50x)

Pl. 7: triangular scar (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 1/1 (50x)

Pl. 8: rectangular, elongated scar (ED4) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 1/4 (50x)

Pl. 9: sliced scar (ED12) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 1/4 (25x)

Pl. 10: edge crushing on the ventral medial fracture edge (ED17 and 18) of the distal part of exp. 1/2 (6x)

PLATES

241

Pl. 11: balloon-type scalar scar (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 26/13 (50x)

Pl. 12: diffuse, wide initiation of oblique scar (ED3) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 1/4 (25x)

Pl. 13: sliced into scalar scar (ED8) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/3A (25x)

Pl. 14: sliced into scalar scar (ED4) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 1/4 (50x)

Pl. 15: narrow into wide scar, step-terminating (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 26/5 (50x)

Pl. 16: narrow initiation of feather-terminating scalar scar (ED6) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 10/2 (50x)

242

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 17: feather-terminating scalar scar with wide initiation (ED1) on the distal part of the ventral medial left edge of exp. 10/23 (50x)

Pl. 18: twisted initiation of sliced into scalar scar (ED3) on the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 19/2A (50x)

Pl. 19: feather-terminating scalar scars with wide initiations (ED1) on the distal part of the ventral medial left edge (25x)

Pl. 20: hinge-terminating scar (ED5) on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 1/11 (12x)

Pl. 21: vertical terminating sliced scar (ED12) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 1/4 (25x)

Pl. 22: superposing scars (ED2) on the dorsal most proximal left edge of exp. 1/6 (12x)

PLATES

243

Pl. 23: small scars (ED 8) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 10/18 (25x)

Pl. 24: very large vertical terminating sliced scars (ED12) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 1/4 (12x)

Pl. 25: flat, superficial feather-terminating scalar scar (ED7) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 10/17 (50x)

Pl. 26: deep hinge-terminating trapezoidal scar (ED5) on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 10/17 (12x)

Pl. 27: intrusive feather-terminating scalar scar (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 10/17 (50x)

Pl. 28: moderate to abrupt terminating scars on the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 10/20 (50x)

244

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 29: evenly sized feather-terminating scalar scars with wide initiations (ED1) on the proximal part of the ventral medial left edge of exp. 10/23 (25x)

Pl. 30: crushed initiation of feather-terminating scalar scar (ED5) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 10/2 (25x)

Pl. 31: discontinuous wood haft polish (P2) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 1/2 (200x)

Pl. 32: continuous wood haft polish (P6) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 1/1 (200x)

Pl. 33: rough wrapping polish (leather wrapping on wooden haft; P3) distributed along microtopography on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 1/7 (200x)

Pl. 34: antler haft polish (P2) limited to the outer border on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 10/26 (200x)

PLATES

245

Pl. 35: antler haft polish (P3) limited to the outer border on a ridge crossing on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 10/26 (200x)

Pl. 36: vegetal binding polish (P7) distributed along the microtopgraphy on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 9/4 (on ridge crossing) (200x)

Pl. 37: straight hafting striation (S3) with a perpendicular orientation on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 9/4 (200x)

Pl. 38: straight hafting striation (S6) with a perpendicular orientation on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 9/1 (200x)

Pl. 39: hafting striations with several orientations (S2) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 9/1 (200x)

Pl. 40: bright spot in striation (S8) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 10/22 (200x)

246

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 41: hafting bright spots (BS2) associated with scarring on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 1/1 (200x)

Pl. 42: hafting bright spots (BS4) within scar on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 10/23 (200x)

Pl. 43: hafting bright spots (BS4) associated with scars on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 10/23 (200x)

Pl. 44: hafting bright spot associated with striation (S7) on the ventral most proximal surface of exp. 10/22 (200x)

Pl. 45: early stage of hafting bright spot formation (BS2) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 10/26 (200x)

Pl. 46: hafting bright spots (BS1) on the dorsal proximal surface of exp. 10/26 (200x)

PLATES

247

Pl. 47: hafting bright spots (BS13) on the ventral medial edge of exp. 10/22 (200x)

Pl. 48: well-developed, extensive hafting bright spots (BS2) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 9/1 (200x)

Pl. 49: well-developed, extensive hafting bright spots (BS11) on the dorsal medial surface (near fracture) of exp. 10/5 (200x)

Pl. 50: hafting scarring (ED4) on the distal part of the ventral medial right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x)

Pl. 51: hafting scarring (ED5) on the most proximal part of the ventral medial right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x)

Pl. 52: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/4 (50x)

248

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 53: hafting scarring (ED5) on the dorsal medial left edge of exp. 25/5 (25x)

Pl. 54: hafting scarring (ED6) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 25/5 (50x)

Pl. 55: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 25/5 (50x)

Pl. 56: faint retouch polish on the ventral distal point of exp. 27/12 (200x)

Pl. 57: retouch polish on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 27/15 (100x)

Pl. 58: retouch polish on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 27/15 (100x)

PLATES

249

Pl. 59: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal bulb of 28/1 from intense wood contact (200x)

Pl. 60: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 27/16 from flint-on-flint friction (200x)

Pl. 61: hafting bright spot (BS1) associated with scarring on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 27/16 (200x)

Pl. 62: light knapping polish on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 19/3A from the friction against the core upon detachment (200x)

Pl. 63: intense knapping polish (BS1) on the ventral proximal butt of exp. 17/14 from the friction against the core upon detachment (200x)

Pl. 64: knapping polish on the butt of exp. 19/3A (200x)

250

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 65: faint retouch polish on the ventral distal right edge of exp. 17/17 (200x)

Pl. 66: retouch polish on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 17/13 (200x)

Pl. 67: friction bright spot (BS2) on the dorsal proximal right ridge of exp. 17/1 from anvil contact during retouching (200x)

Pl. 68: friction striation (S2) on the dorsal distal ridge of exp. 17/14 from anvil contact (200x)

Pl. 69: natural surface of fine-grained grey flint on exp. 17/18 (200x)

Pl. 70: natural surface on coarse-grained flint of exp. 22/66 (200x)

PLATES

251

Pl. 71: natural surface of yellow Grand Pressigny flint of exp. 22/64 (200x)

Pl. 72: natural surface on fine-grained flint of exp. 27/11 (200x)

Pl. 73: small scar that detached upon hammer impact from retouching, associated with retouch striation (S1), visible on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 17/1 (200x)

Pl. 74: scarring on exp. 19/5B from anvil contact during retouching (25x)

Pl. 75: knapping bright spot on the bulbar ridges of exp. 17/17 from the friction against the core upon detach (200x)

Pl. 76: knapping striation on the butt of exp. 16/18 from the friction with an antler hammer (50x)

252

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 77: knapping striations on the impact point of the butt of exp. 17/13 from the friction with a stone hammer (200x)

Pl. 78: knapping striation on the butt of exp. 16/18 from the friction with an antler hammer (100x)

Pl. 79: striation on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 17/4 from the friction against the core upon detach (200x)

Pl. 80: retouch striation (S1) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 17/1 (200x)

Pl. 81: retouch striation (S2) within the concavity of a dorsal scar on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 17/1 (200x)

Pl. 82: retouch striations on the ventral edge of exp. 17/19 from the impact of a hard stone hammer (200x)

PLATES

253

Pl. 83: retouch striations on the ventral edge of exp. 27/11 from the impact of a soft stone hammer (200x)

Pl. 84: retouch striations on the ventral edge of exp. 27/15 from the impact of a soft stone hammer (200x)

Pl. 85: retouch striation within the concavity of a dorsal scar on the ventral edge of exp. 17/18 from the impact of an antler hammer (100x)

Pl. 86: complete retouch striation within the concavity of a dorsal scar on the ventral edge of exp. 17/18 from the impact of an antler hammer (100x) (assembled picture of striation in Pl. 85)

Pl. 87: anvil scarring associated with anvil striations on the dorsal distal ridge of exp. 17/14 (200x)

Pl. 88: bright spot on exp. 11/5 from transport for 18 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x)

254

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 89: polish on exp. 11/3 from transport for 21 days in a loose hanging leather bag with addition of schist fragments (200x)

Pl. 90: polish on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 11/37 from transport for 88 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x)

Pl. 91: polish mixed with bright spots on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 11/37 from transport for 88 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x)

Pl. 92: polish on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 11/3 from transport for 21 days in a loose hanging leather bag with addition of schist fragments (200x)

Pl. 93: bright spot on the ventral distal point of exp. 11/37 from transport for 88 days in a loose hanging leather bag (200x)

Pl. 94: polish on exp. 11/36 from transport for 98 days in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x)

PLATES

255

Pl. 95: polish on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 11/4 from transport for 14 days in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x)

Pl. 96: bright spot on the ventral distal left edge of exp. 11/36 from transport for 98 days in a leather bag in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x)

Pl. 97: polish on exp. 11/74 from transport for 120 days while rolled in a piece of leather and placed in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x)

Pl. 98: bright spot on the ventral distal edge of exp. 11/74 from transport for 120 days while rolled in a piece of leather and placed in the pocket of a pair of trousers (200x)

Pl. 99: first stage of bright spot formation from a 2 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/4 (200x)

Pl. 100: second stage of bright spot formation from a 5 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/1 (200x)

256

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 101: third stage of bright spot formation from a 10 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/2 (200x)

Pl. 102: third stage of bright spot formation from a 10 minute friction in dry conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/2 (200x)

Pl. 103: bright spot from a 2 minute friction in wet conditions by a flint edge onto the surface of exp. 24/5 (200x)

Pl. 104: clear impact of use-wear polish visible on the ventral medial left edge of a tool used to cut reed (200x)

Pl. 105: use-wear polish from grooving fresh cattle bone on the dorsal burin tip of exp. 19/1C (200x)

Pl. 106: gradual intrusion of the use-wear polish into the surface and directional aspect visible on the ventral medial left edge of a tool used to cut reed (200x)

PLATES

257

Pl. 107: use-wear polish on the dorsal distal edge of exp. 22/70 from cutting cereals (200x)

Pl. 108: clear rounding associated with use-wear polish on the scraper-head of exp. 16/19 used to scrape tanned sheep hide (1 hour) (200x)

Pl. 109: use-wear polish on the ventral distal scraper-head of exp. 16/18 from scraping wetted sheep hide (200x)

Pl. 110: use-wear polish on the ventral distal edge of exp. 20/8 from scraping hide on wood (200x)

Pl. 111: bright spot integrated in hide use-wear polish on ventral scraper-head (200x)

Pl. 112: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 19/1A from friction with a wooden haft (200x)

258

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 113: limited leather hafting polish (P7) on the dorsal proximal edge of exp. 19/1A (200x)

Pl. 114: limited leather hafting polish (P9) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 19/1A (200x)

Pl. 115: wood haft polish (P3) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 19/5A (200x)

Pl. 116: wood haft polish (P5) on the ventral bulb of exp. 19/5A (200x)

Pl. 117: hafting bright spots (BS3) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/5A (200x)

Pl. 118: hafting bright spots (BS4) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 19/5A (200x)

PLATES

259

Pl. 119: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/3A (200x)

Pl. 120: hafting scarring including a sliced into scalar scar (ED8) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/3A (12x)

Pl. 121: hafting scarring (ED9) on the distal part of the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/3A (50x)

Pl. 122: hafting scarring (ED5) on the ventral most proximal right edge of exp. 19/3A (25x)

Pl. 123: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 19/3A (200x)

Pl. 124: hafting scarring on (ED2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/4 (50x)

260

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 125: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 25/5 (50x)

Pl. 126: leather hafting polish (P6) on the ventral medial surface of exp. 19/3B (200x)

Pl. 127: friction hafting polish (P10) associated with ventral scarring on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 25/2 (200x)

Pl. 128: hafting striation (S1) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 25/2 (200x)

Pl. 129: hafting striation (S2) on the dorsal medial right surface of exp. 25/2 (200x)

Pl. 130: hafting scarring (ED6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 25/3 (50x)

PLATES

261

Pl. 131: hafting scarring (ED7) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/1B (25x)

Pl. 132: prehension scarring (ED4) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 19/1C (50x)

Pl. 133: prehension scarring (ED1) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/1C (50x)

Pl. 134: prehension antler polish (P4) on the most proximal part of the ventral distal right edge of exp. 19/3C (200x)

Pl. 135: prehension antler polish (P5) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 19/3C (200x)

Pl. 136: prehension antler polish (P6) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 19/3C (200x)

262

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 137: prehension scarring (ED5) on the dorsal proximal right edge of exp. 19/3C (50x)

Pl. 138: prehension antler polish (P2) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 19/3C (200x)

Pl. 139: prehension antler polish (P6) on the dorsal distal left ridge of exp. 19/5C (200x)

Pl. 140: prehension antler polish (P9) on the dorsal distal right ridge of exp. 19/5C (200x)

Pl. 141: prehension antler polish (P17) on the dorsal proximal butt of exp. 19/5C (200x)

Pl. 142: prehension antler polish (P5) on the right corner of the ventral proximal butt of exp. 19/5C (200x)

PLATES

263

Pl. 143: prehension scarring on the proximal left edge of exp. 25/1 (50x)

Pl. 144: wood prehension polish (P5) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/59 (200x)

Pl. 145: wood prehension polish (P14) on the distal part of the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 22/59 (200x)

Pl. 146: wood prehension polish (P2) on the ventral medial right edge of exp. 22/59 (200x)

Pl. 147: prehension bright spot (BS1) on the distal part of the ventral proximal surface of exp. 22/63 (well-developed wood polish) (200x)

Pl. 148: prehension bone polish (P4) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 22/85 (200x)

264

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 149: prehension bone polish (P2) on the distal part of the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/86 (200x)

Pl. 150: prehension bone polish (P9) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/86 (200x)

Pl. 151: wood haft polish (P2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/31 (200x)

Pl. 152: wood haft polish (P4) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 22/31 (200x)

Pl. 153: leather binding polish (P8) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/33 (200x)

Pl. 154: resin friction polish (P4) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/45 (200x)

PLATES

265

Pl. 155: resin friction polish (P4) and bright spots (BS3) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/45 (200x)

Pl. 156: resin friction bright spot (BS1) on the dorsal medial right edge of exp. 22/46 (200x)

Pl. 157: bone polish from friction with particles of the material worked within the hafting arrangement of exp. 22/17 (200x)

Pl. 158: bright spot (BS1) from friction with particles of the material worked within the hafting arrangement of exp. 22/16 (welldeveloped bone polish) (200x)

Pl. 159: hafting bright spot (BS3) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/19 (well-developed antler haft polish) (200x)

Pl. 160: hafting striation (S1) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/20 from friction with the antler haft (200x)

266

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 161: resin friction bright spot (BS1) on the ventral most proximal edge of exp. 22/22 from de-hafting (200x)

Pl. 162: resin friction bright spot (BS3) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/22 from de-hafting (200x)

Pl. 163: resin friction bright spot (BS4) on the dorsal proximal left edge of exp. 22/22 from de-hafting (200x)

Pl. 164: hafting striation (S2) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/64 from resin friction upon de-hafting (200x)

Pl. 165: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the dorsal medial surface of exp. 22/64 from resin friction upon de-hafting (200x)

Pl. 166: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the ventral proximal edge of exp. 22/65 from flint-on-flint friction (200x)

PLATES

267

Pl. 167: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the most distal part of the ventral proximal left edge of BT1 (100x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 168: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the most distal part of the ventral proximal left surface of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 169: hafting bright spot (BS4) on the dorsal medial ridge of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 170: hafting polish (P11) on the dorsal medial ridge of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 171: hafting polish (P12) on the dorsal proximal ridge of BT1 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 172: use-wear polish on the tip of BT2 from drilling schist (200x) (correct interpretation)

268

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 173: use-wear polish on the ventral scraper-head of BT3 from scraping tanned leather (100x) (only partially correct interpretation)

Pl. 174: use-wear polish and scarring on the ventral tip of BT4 from grooving antler (100x) (correct interpretation)

Pl. 175: use-wear polish on the ventral edge of BT4 from grooving antler (200x) (correct interpretation)

Pl. 176: use-wear polish on the ventral scraper-head BT5 from scraping schist (200x) (correct interpretation)

Pl. 177: use-wear scarring on the ventral scraper-head of BT5 from scraping schist (100x) (correct interpretation)

Pl. 178: hafting striation on the ventral proximal edge of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as due to retouching)

PLATES

269

Pl. 179: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal surface of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 180: wood haft polish (P9) on the dorsal medial edge of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 181: wood haft polish (P5) on the dorsal ridge of BT5 (200x) (mistakenly attributed to prehension)

Pl. 182: use-wear polish on the ventral edge of BT6 from grooving wood (200x) (correct interpretation)

Pl. 183: binding polish (P1) associated with scarring marking the haft limit on the ventral medial left edge of BT6 (200x) (correctly inferred limit)

Pl. 184: hafting striations (S2) parallel and just next to the ridge of BT6, associated with wood haft polish (P10) (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as antler)

270

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 185: use-wear polish on the ventral scraper-head of BT7 from scraping hide positioned on a piece of wood (200x) (correctly inferred)

Pl. 186: antler haft polish (P11) on the right side of the central dorsal ridge of BT7 (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as wood polish)

Pl. 187: antler haft polish (P16) on the left side of the central dorsal ridge of BT7 (200x) (mistakenly interpreted as wood polish)

Pl. 188: hafting polish (P17) at the exact haft limit on the dorsal medial right edge of BT7 (200x) (correctly inferred limit)

Pl. 189. use-wear on the ventral scraper-head of exp. 13/8 from scraping schist (30’) (200x)

Pl. 190. use-wear on the ventral scraper-head of exp. 13/8 from scraping schist (30’) (200x)

PLATES

271

Pl. 191: schist prehension polish (P2) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 12/14 (scraping) (200x)

Pl. 192: schist prehension polish (P3) on the dorsal distal ridge of exp. 12/14 (scraping) (200x)

Pl. 193: schist prehension bright spot (BS4) on the ventral proximal surface of exp. 12/1 (perforating) (200x)

Pl. 194: well-developed integrated schist prehension bright spot (BS5) on a ridge of the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 12/1 (perforating) (200x)

Pl. 195: well-developed pyrite prehension polish (P9) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 12/17 (fire making) (200x)

Pl. 196: pyrite prehension polish (P2) on the ventral proximal right edge of exp. 12/17 (100x) (fire making) (200x)

272

PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS

Pl. 197: antler haft polish (P2) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/39 (200x)

Pl. 198: wood haft polish (P9) on the dorsal medial ridge of exp. 22/42 (200x)

Pl. 199: hafting scarring (ED2) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/53 (100x)

Pl. 200: hafting bright spot (BS1) on the ventral proximal left edge of exp. 22/53 (200x)

Pl. 201: leather binding polish (P10) on the dorsal proximal ridge of exp. 22/2 (200x)

Pl. 202: wood haft polish (P5) on the ventral proximal bulb of exp. 22/2 (200x)

PLATES

Pl. 203: hafting bright spot (BS2) on the ventral medial left edge of exp. 22/2 (200x)

273

Pl. 204: binding (tendons) polish (P9) on the dorsal proximal surface of exp. 22/5 (200x)