Knapping tools in Magdalenian contexts: New evidence from Gough’s Cave (Somerset, UK)

Abstract

Our knowledge of the recolonization of north-west Europe at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum depends to a large extent on finds from Gough’s Cave (Somerset, UK). Ultra-high resolution radiocarbon determinations suggest that the cave was occupied seasonally by Magdalenian hunters for perhaps no more than two or three human generations, centred on 12,600 BP (~14,950–14,750 cal BP). They left behind a rich and diverse assemblage of Magdalenian lithic and osseous artefacts, butchered animal bones, and cannibalised human remains. The faunal assemblage from Gough’s Cave is one of the most comprehensively studied from any Magdalenian site, yet new and unexpected discoveries continue to be made. Here, we record previously unrecognized flint-knapping tools that were identified during a survey of the Gough’s Cave faunal collection at the Natural History Museum (London). We identified bones used as hammers and teeth manipulated as pressure-flakers to manufacture flint tools. Most of the pieces appear to be ad hoc (single-use?) tools, but a horse molar was almost certainly a curated object that was used over an extended period to work many stone tools. This paper explores how these knapping tools were used to support a more nuanced understanding of Magdalenian stone-tool manufacturing processes. Moreover, we provide a standard for identifying minimally-used knapping tools that will help to establish whether retouchers and other organic stone-working tools are as rare in the Magdalenian archaeological record as current studies suggest.

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

“…At the same time, discontinuous linear cut marks, sometimes overlying impressions, may reflect the beveling process. A combination of similar marks is often found on Paleolithic bone retouchers in Northern Eurasia (Moigne et al, 2016; Costamagno et al, 2018; Mozota, 2018; Martellotta et al, 2020; Bello et al, 2021). In this aspect, the functional significance of blows to the midshaft butt, which led to the appearance of longitudinal cracks, becomes clear.…”

A Middle Pleistocene Butchery Site at Great Yeldham, Essex, UK: Identifying Butchery Strategies and Implications for Mammalian Faunal History

“…Finally, this study exemplifies the potential of examining faunal collections discovered and studied decades ago for traces of human modification. Not only do such studies contribute information to regional Palaeolithic archaeology, but archived collections are also a rich source and largely untapped resource that can reveal important insights regarding early human behaviour and adaptation that are unreachable from the study of stone tools alone (Bello et al, 2021;Charles & Jacobi, 1994;Lord et al, 2007;Parfitt, 2004;Parkin et al, 1986). via Bello for commenting on an earlier version of this paper.…”

Beyond the main function: An experimental study of the use of hardwood boomerangs in retouching activities

“…They start from the edges of the linear impressions and extend perpendicularly. We defined them as ‘tool-edge scratches’ [ 44 ] ( Fig 9D ). Finally, a significant number of stone micro-flakes (i.e., only visible under magnification) were embedded in the impact traces, in both linear and punctiform impressions (Figs 9E and 10 );…”

“…Indeed, in several instances, the morphology of the stigma seems to be shaped by the flint pieces embedded in it: an elongated micro-flake leaves a linear impression on the wooden surface ( Fig 10A, 10B ), whereas the impacts of the retouching percussion repeatedly fracture the embedded chips and in turn contribute to the final shape of punctiform impressions and notches ( Fig 10C–10F ). Flint chips embedded in the impact traces have been observed in bone retouchers from experimental and, more rarely, Palaeolithic contexts [ 27 , 29 , 44 ]. Some micro-flakes were also present in our sample of experimental bone retouchers ( Fig 9F ).…”

“…It is interesting to note that peeling use-wear usually relates to bone fracturing actions [ 41 ]; to our knowledge, it is not commonly identified in the context of retouching use-wear, except for some instances in the use of weathered bones in knapping/retouching activities [ 27 , 42 , 43 ]. In addition, an uncommon category of use-wear associated with retouch activities was identified—the ‘tool-edge scratches’ [ 44 , 56 ] ( Fig 9D ). They could be described as ‘sliding marks’, usually associated with linear impressions.…”