Abstract
Despite a strong increase in the research on hominin percussive tool use, the primary focus in the study of technological behaviour still lies on flaked stone artefacts, especially for the Middle Palaeolithic. This paper aims to contribute to a more thorough understanding of the full spectrum of homi;nin technological behaviour, by presenting a systematic analysis of ground stone tools from the Last Interglacial Middle Palaeolithic site Neumark-Nord 2/2 (NN2/2) (Germany). At NN2/2, coarse gravel- and cobble-sized pieces (n = 351) were sourced from local outcrops of glacial deposits, with a preferential selection for quartzite and sandstone. Low-power use wear analysis and the archaeological context of these finds provide evidence for the possible use of at least 58 pieces for active (hammerstones) and 5 for passive (anvils) percussive tasks, specifically lithic production and potentially bone processing. These grounds stone tools are larger and heavier than the manuports. The hammerstones were preferentially made of quartz and quartzite, while the anvils are mostly of limestone. The limited build-up of use wear on the tools is interpreted as expedient use. The presence of post-depositional surface modifications, their relatively expedient use and their potential application on soft contact materials (e.g. nuts) resulted in a relatively low discernibility of the wear. With expediency being a key factor in Middle Palaeolithic lithic technology, we can expect comparable patterns for other similar-aged ground stone assemblages. Moreover, external factors, like geological context and raw material availability, post-depositional conditions and research focus and intensity, further contribute to the invisibility of such finds in the Middle Palaeolithic record.
Highlights
Tool use has been documented for a limited number of animals, including numerous primate species, and mostly involves percussive activities (de la Torre and Hirata 2015)
This paper aims to contribute to the field’s knowledge of ground stone tool use by presenting a systematic, low power use wear analysis
Despite the similarities in rock types, there are some discrepancies in their proportions (Fig. 5), which may be caused by differences in the size classes studied (> 20 mm for the Neumark-Nord 2/2 (NN2/2) material and 6.3–20 mm for the sampled glacial deposits)
Summary
Tool use has been documented for a limited number of animals, including numerous primate species, and mostly involves percussive activities (de la Torre and Hirata 2015). Goodall 1964) and currently receives much attention (Carvalho et al 2008; Gumert and Malaivijitnond 2013; Haslam et al 2016; Luncz et al 2015; Roffman et al 2012; de la Torre and Hirata 2015; Proffitt et al 2016; Mercader et al 2002, 2007; Whiten et al 2009) Despite their theorised key position in the Palaeolithic technological repertoire (de Beaune 2004) and their frequent occurrence in Palaeolithic assemblages, the use of (virtually) unmodified pebbles and cobbles as tools remained understudied, when compared to the more frequently occurring stone tools produced by conchoidal fracture (i.e. flaked tools) (de Beaune 1993; Dubreuil and Savage 2014). For the sake of consistency with the existing literature (Adams 2002; Dubreuil et al 2015; Rowan and Ebeling 2008), we use the term ground stone tools in this paper
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
