How Neanderthals gripped retouchers: experimental reconstruction of the manipulation of bone retouchers by Neanderthal stone knappers

Abstract

When studying bone retouchers, researchers pay close attention to the morphological characteristics of the tool's active zone, and the lithic raw material processed. In our research, we found that the orientation of the bone retoucher in the hand and the grip employed to retain and manipulate it are crucial factors that affect the morphological characteristics of the retoucher's active zone. By examining two alternative grips for manipulating bone retouchers ((1) Using all the fingers of one hand in a power grip; (2) Using only the first three digits of one hand in a pinch grip), we found that when the retoucher is held in the first manner, the active area is larger, as is the amount of bone removed by the retoucher. When the retoucher was pinched with only three fingers in a precision grip, retouch damage was more densely concentrated and less bone was removed. The orientation of the retoucher in the hand and the grip employed have a greater influence on the active area than the extent of retoucher use, which we assessed by measuring the number of stone tool edges processed. By gripping the retoucher with all the fingers of one hand, the knapper automatically applies greater force, which results in the removal of more bone. Comparison of experimental bone retouchers with those recovered from Middle Paleolithic archaeological contexts in Cha-gyrskaya Cave (Altai, Russia) revealed that Altai Neanderthals practiced two methods of grasping bone retouchers, with a three-finger pinch grip being dominant.

The unique Late Paleolithic artifactual bone assemblage from the Volchia Griva site, Western Siberia

“…The blows probably were produced by a heavy (≥2 kg) hammerstone for the purpose of chipping long and thick cortical blanks for retouchers with a regular convex surface. According to some researchers (Mozota, 2013; Kolobova et al, 2022), the diaphyses of large mammal long bones are the best material for this purpose. Impressions and linear cut marks caused by using the mammoth femur as a retoucher are fundamentally different from the gnawing marks made by predators and scavengers, as well as from marks made by trampling.…”

Using horse teeth to shape stone tools: an experimental approach to characterise use-wear traces

“…Several experiments have been typically and widely performed to understand why and how these bone tools were used, focusing on successfully correlating the morphology of the taphonomic alterations with a number of variables, such as the grip (Kolobova et al 2022), the condition of the bone (fresh or dry; Villa and Mahieu 1991;Mallye et al 2012;Mozota 2013), the type of activity (Mateo-Lomba et al 2020), the type of retouched lithic raw material (Rosell et al 2011;Mallye et al 2012;Mozota 2013), the retouch type (e.g. simple, pressure, Quina-type retouch; Boëda and Vicent 1990;Bourguignon 2001;Ahern et al 2004;Tartar 2012;Mozota 2013), the retouching methods and techniques (e.g.…”