Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools

Rots, Veerle

doi:10.2307/j.ctt9qf05s

Cited by 134 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It may have served a similar purpose in prehistory as well. Many hafting methods rely on some form of fibre or cordage for binding [58,80,81]. Natural plant and animal fibres are highly susceptible to moisture, and tar or pitch is an obvious choice for waterproofing.…”

Section: High-tech Pitch?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory strength testing of pine wood and birch bark adhesives: A first study of the material properties of pitch

Kozowyk

Poulis

Langejans

2017

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adhesives are an important yet often overlooked aspect of human tool use. Previous experiments have shown that compound resin/gum adhesive production by anatomically modern humans was a cognitively demanding task that required advanced use of fire, forward planning, and abstraction among other traits. Yet the oldest known adhesives were produced by Neandertals, not anatomically modern humans. These tar or pitch adhesives are an entirely different material, produced from a distinct, albeit similarly complex process. However, the material properties of these adhesives and the influence of the production process on performance is still unclear. To this end we conducted a series of laboratory based lap shear and impact tests following modern adhesive testing standards and at three different temperatures to measure the strength of pine and birch pitch adhesives. We tested eight different recipes that contain charcoal as an additive (mimicking contamination) or were reduced by boiling for different lengths of time. Lap shear tests were conducted on wood and flint adherends to determine shear strength on different materials, and we conducted high load-rate tests to understand how the same material behaves under impact forces. Our results indicate that both pine and birch pitch adhesives behave similarly at room temperature. Pine pitch is highly sensitive to the addition of charcoal and further heating. Up to a certain extent charcoal additives increases performance, as does extra seething. However, too much charcoal and seething will reduce performance. Similarly, pine pitch is sensitive to ambient temperature changes and it is strongest at 0°C and weakest at 38°C. Adhesive failures occur in a similar manner on flint and wood suggesting the weakest part of a flint-adhesive-wood composite tool may have been the cohesive strength of the adhesive. Finally, pine pitch adhesives may be better suited to resisting high-load rate impacts than shear forces. Our experiments show that pitch production and post-production manipulation are sensitive processes, and to obtain a workable and strong adhesive one requires a deep understanding of the material properties. Our results validate previous archaeological adhesive studies that suggest that the manufacture and use of adhesives was an advanced technological process.

show abstract

Section: High-tech Pitch?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laboratory strength testing of pine wood and birch bark adhesives: A first study of the material properties of pitch

Kozowyk

Poulis

Langejans

2017

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3(f)), exhibit hafting traces, evidence of wear created by the positioning of the tool in wood, bone, or antler handles. They are evidenced by a very smooth, brilliant polish, striations, and modifications of the tool edge by micro‐scarring or edge‐rounding (Kimball, '89; Rots, 2008, 2010). When viewed at the correct angle a hafting trace can be optically reflective under low magnification (5–10×).…”

Section: Results and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kimball ('89) extended Plisson's classification to include cane and hafting polishes. And, recently, Rots (2010) published a systematic, experimentally‐based study of hafting traces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Atomic force microscopy of microwear traces on Mousterian tools from Myshtylagty Lagat (Weasel Cave), Russia

Faulks¹,

Kimball²,

Hidjrati³

et al. 2011

Scanning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since durable technology emerged between 3.4 and 3.2 million years ago, stone tools served as a major material means that hominins used to survive. Determining how different lithic tools functioned is a principal question in human evolution. The main experimentally based approach to the functional study of lithic technology uses stereo and incident-light microscopy, and is known as the Keeley Method. Although this method has demonstrated success in linking the morphology of microwear traces on flint tools to the function of the tool, there is no agreed upon model of how these microwear polishes form. At the same time, the characterization of these polishes has been a largely qualitative process. Herein, we use the atomic force microscope (AFM) to scan microwear traces on Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) tools from Weasel Cave, Russia to show quantitative data and small scale features of microwear polishes interpreted (using the Keeley Method) as due to contact with meat, fresh hide, dry hide, bone, wood, and hafting. These results follow those of to the previous AFM study on the experimental tools, namely that the meat and dry hide polishes are the least developed polishes with smaller changes in roughness and that the bone polish and wood polishes are more highly developed polishes and exhibit larger changes in roughness.

show abstract

“…Microscopic examinations were designed to identify use‐wear features, residues adhering to the artefacts, breakage patterns and evidence for hafting. For the identification of hafting, Rots (: 203‐4) distinguishes five types of wear: polish, scarring, rounding, striations and bright spots. Importantly, if the bright spots are localised on a particular part of the tool and are associated with scarring, the tool has definitely been hafted.…”

Section: Use‐wear/residue Analytical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, Rots (: 812) determines that “absence of scarring and polish in a well‐delimited area” usually signifies the use of resin, not necessarily the absence of hafting. Rots (: 204) also notes that “the coarser the raw material, the slower the formation of hafting traces”, which is significant in relation to Australian stone artefacts, which are usually manufactured on relatively coarse material. Therefore, in this study, the presence and distribution of resin is considered the primary evidence for the prior existence of a haft, with wear features providing supplementary data.…”

Section: Use‐wear/residue Analytical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Robertson

Attenbrow

Hiscock

2019

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previous use-wear and residue analysis of backed artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter showed that they had a range of functions and had been used with a variety of raw materials. Were non-backed retouched flakes at Deep Creek used for different purposes? To answer this question, 40 non-backed specimens were selected for microscopic use-wear and residue analysis. Not all of these non-backed artefacts had been used, but we identified that many were scrapers, knives, incisors and saws. These tools were used for bone-working and wood-working, and possibly skin-working and non-woody plant-processing. Some of these non-backed retouched artefacts were hafted. For the first time, these results allow comparison of the tool use of backed and non-backed artefacts in Australia. At Deep Creek, the range of functions for the non-backed component was extremely similar to that of the backed artefacts. Although both artefact categories displayed similar tool use, they are distinguished in one interesting way: non-backed specimens were often single purpose, dedicated to one function, whereas backed artefacts were often multifunctional and multipurpose. These results help us understand the structure of tool use in Australia. RÉSUMÉ Une premièreétude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outilsà bordémoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux-ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaientété extraits de matières premières variées. Leséclats retouchés sans bordémoussé de Deep Creek ont-ilsété utilisésà des fins différentes? Afin de répondreà cette question, 40 outils sans bordémoussé ontété sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bordémoussé avaientété utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoupétaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outilsétaient employés pour du travail sur l'os et sur le bois, et peut-être pour le traitement des peaux et de plantes non ligneuses. Certains de ces outils noń emoussés retouchés avaientété emmanchés.Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bordémoussé en Australie.À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composantà bordémousséétait très semblableà celui des outils sans bordémoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bordémousséétaient souvent mono-tâche, dédiésà une seule fonction, alors que les artefactsà bordémousséétaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aidentà comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.Mots-clés:éclatsà bordémoussé,éclats sans bordémoussé, analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure, Mangrove Creek, microlithique, non-microlithique, analyse tracéologique microscopique

show abstract

Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools

Cited by 134 publications

References 0 publications

Laboratory strength testing of pine wood and birch bark adhesives: A first study of the material properties of pitch

Laboratory strength testing of pine wood and birch bark adhesives: A first study of the material properties of pitch

Atomic force microscopy of microwear traces on Mousterian tools from Myshtylagty Lagat (Weasel Cave), Russia

Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About