Aspects of tool production, use, and hafting in Palaeolithic assemblages from Northeast Africa

Abstract

A detailed microwear study was performed on several assemblages from Northeast Africa to provide an anthropological scenario of late middle and upper Pleistocene populations in the Nile Valley and adjacent zones. Results are presented from the wear analysis of five sites, and an interpretation is provided of the keystones of MSA behaviour and its evolution throughout about 150,000 years. Locally available raw materials were predominantly used. Different tool uses were identified based on wear evidence, and it was demonstrated that stone tools were hafted from at least the early MSA onwards. In particular stone tools for which hafting was a necessity for their use, such as percussion implements and projectiles, were hafted. Both tool functions remain important throughout the Middle Stone Age. For tools with other uses, such as knives, hafting was demonstrated in certain cases. Hafting proved to be integrated into the stone tool production process, indicating a certain degree of anticipation and planning. Ochre was present at most of the sites in different forms, and mainly seems to have served a utilitarian function, and a possible symbolic use. The included sites could be interpreted as specialised sites, and in all but one case were situated in a production context. The evidence indicates the existence of a regional settlement system with different logistic nodes.

Are Lithics and Fauna a Match Made in (Prehistoric) Heaven?

“…In Eurasia and Africa, complex technological processes were applied in order to haft MP points (Lombard et al 2005;Shea 1993;Wadley et al 2009). However, flakes and retouched items, not necessarily used in fauna-related activities, were hafted in similar manners (e.g., Boëda et al 2008;Friedman et al 1994-5;Rots 2013;Rots et al 2011). MP stone tools, armatures among them, likely had multiple uses (e.g., Holdaway 1989;Plisson and Beyries 1988;Shea 1988Shea , 1991; and see reviews in Dibble et al 2017;Nelson 1991).…”

Landscape variability in tool-use and edge damage formation in South African Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages

“…Lithic use-wear analysts create experimental collections of tools that consist of rawmaterials, hafting/prehension arrangements, and use-intensity that are deemed analogous to the time period and archaeological culture under investigation (Rots et al, 2011). Usewear analysts then use a combination of microscopic polishes, striations, "bright spots", and edge scarring/dulling to infer the life history of a tool by comparison with observations from the experimental collection.…”

“…Although this is roughly equivalent to a "random" distribution, the term "uniform" is used for these analyses to clarify that the comparison was not randomly sampled or resampled, but simply a uniform distribution of edge damage along the tool edge. Many experimental studies have demonstrated that damage from different activities creates different edge-wear distributions (Tringham et al, 1974;Keeley, 1980;Rots et al, 2011) and the KS statistic helps tease apart these processes based on the observed damage patterning.…”

“…Assertive statements such as, "…more than 50% of the pieces could hardly have been used in any way other than to tip arrows…" (Lombard, 2011) and "this pattern is interpreted as being caused by a thrusting spear that is turned (twisted) to one side (the right) immediately after insertion…" (Rots et al, 2011) are presented as fact, often with little supporting statistical analyses with which other researchers can evaluate the claims.…”

The Upper Palaeolithic Lithic Industry of Nazlet Khater 4 (Egypt): Implications for the Stone Age/Palaeolithic of Northeastern Africa

“…2). The extraction was made using hartebeest and gazelle horn picks, as well as bifacial lithic adzes of the "Nazlet Khater type," found within the prehistoric dump, which left utilization traces on the extraction walls (Vermeersch et al 2002;Rots et al 2011) (Fig. 3j).…”