Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: Variability and functionality

The role of edge angle maintenance in explaining technological variation in the production of Late Middle Paleolithic bifacial and unifacial tools

“…It is not only the tools themselves that are adapted to these constraints. The process of thinning involves the use of hammerstones/retouchers that have a different morphology (Veselsky, 2008;Daujeard et al, 2014), and different and surprising materials from those known from classical flake production (e.g. limestone, Roussel et al, 2009).…”

A newly discovered antler flint-knapping hammer and the question of their rarity in the Palaeolithic archaeological record: Reality or bias?

“…The manufacture of antler hammers would have required a more complex chain of actions that included procuring the necessary raw-materials (shed antler and chopping/cutting tools) and technological actions to reduce the length of the beam and remove the tines (Wenban-Smith, 1989). Long use-life can be inferred from the heavy damage observed on some archaeological antler hammers, supporting the suggestion that they were curated tools (Gál, 2011, Daujeard et al, 2014; for these reasons, antler hammers were less likely to have been lost or discarded than more easily procured bone retouchers. In contrast, bone retouchers are less resilient and more prone to breakage; they therefore had a much shorter use-life and probably functioned as ad hoc or expedient tools made on the spot to fulfil immediate needs (Rosell et al, 2015;van kolfschoten et al, submitted).…”

“…This suggestion is supported by Rosell et al (2015) who propose that although soft hammers were used by Acheulean knappers to shape large lithic tools (mainly bifaces), they were less suited to fashioning Middle Palaeolithic stone tools and that knapping during this period relied on more easily accesible bone retouchers. Moreover, Daujeard et al (2014) have argued that Neanderthals preferred the physical properties of bone surfaces to the corrugated surface of antler beams, which made antlers less suitable for fine retouching tasks.…”

“…In Europe and Asia, bones used as retouchers have been recovered from numerous Neanderthal sites (e.g. Henri-Martin, 1906;Chase, 1990;Auguste, 2002;Griggo, 2002;Veselski, 2008;Conard et al, 2012;Jéquier et al 2012;Mallye et al, 2012;Abrams et al, 2014;Daujeard et al, 2014;Romandini et al, 2014) and, increasingly from Lower Palaeolithic sites (Rosell et al, 2011;Blasco et al, 2013;Rosell et al, 2015;van Kolfschoten et al, submitted). The limits of modern knapping experiments are highlighted by the much wider range of knapping tools found with Upper Palaeolithic and later lithic industries in Eurasia and North America; these include a various types of hammers, retouchers and punches made from a range of raw materials including bone, teeth (including ivory) and antler (Bourlon, 1907;Bordes, 1974;Saunders et al, 1991;Averbouch and Bodu, 2002;Haynes, 2002;Leroy-Prost, 2002;Castel et al, 2003;Steguweit and Trnka, 2008;Tartar, 2012;Évora, 2013).…”

Rotten ivory as raw material source in European Upper Palaeolithic

“…It is related to well-documented Neanderthal sites (Verna and d'Errico, 2011;Daujeard et al, 2014). While hitting marks on long bone shaft fragments seems to be less practical in terms of a longer preservation of the hammers (Verna and d'Errico, 2011), the epiphysis of the long bones from big game are hard enough and feasible for longer use as hammers for flint-knapping (Daujeard et al, 2014).…”