When lithics hit bones: Evaluating the potential of a multifaceted experimental protocol to illuminate Middle Palaeolithic weapon technology

Recent zooarchaeological and isotope analyses have largely settled the debate surrounding Neanderthal hunting capacities, repeatedly demonstrating their successful acquisition of large ungulates. Nevertheless, the functional identification of individual tools as hunting weapons remains a methodological challenge. In-depth studies have focussed mainly on small subsets of lithic artefacts from selected assemblages assessing features of breakage patterns, retouch, shape and use wear. Studies focussing on associated hunting lesions are rarer and often focus on reconstructing very specific bone surface marks encountered in the archaeological record. This study aims to add to our understanding of the formation and characteristics of projectile impact marks (PIMs) on bone through a series of highly monitored, replicative experiments, using thrusting and throwing spears with replica Levallois points into two wild pig carcasses. In total, 152 shots were made, and for each a series of attributes was recorded, including velocity and location of impact. Subsequent quantitative analyses focussed on understanding the various factors underlying the formation of different types of projectile impact marks. These experiments demonstrate that PIM formation results from the properties of both the impacting projectile and bone element. PIMs can signal impacts caused by different delivery methods but only on some parts of the skeleton. These results are contextualised in relation to the occurrence and recognition of Palaeolithic PIMs and patterns of Neanderthal behaviour. These experiments are only a first step in improving the recognition of these signatures in the archaeological record and providing better insights into understanding of the mechanisms of Neanderthal hunting

A Synthesis of the Dibble et al. Controlled Experiments into the Mechanics of Lithic Production

Archaeologists have explored a wide range of topics regarding archaeological stone tools and their connection to past human lifeways through experimentation. Controlled experimentation systematically quantifies the empirical relationships among different flaking variables under a controlled and reproducible setting. This approach offers a platform to generate and test hypotheses about the technological decisions of past knappers from the perspective of basic flaking mechanics. Over the past decade, Harold Dibble and colleagues conducted a set of controlled flaking experiments to better understand flake variability using mechanical flaking apparatuses and standardized cores. Results of their studies underscore the dominant impact of exterior platform angle and platform depth on flake size and shape and have led to the synthesis of a flake formation model, namely the EPA-PD model. However, the results also illustrate the complexity of the flake formation process through the influence of other parameters such as core surface morphology and force application. Here we review the work of Dibble and colleagues on controlled flaking experiments by summarizing their findings to date. Our goal is to synthesize what was learned about flake variability from these controlled experiments to better understand the flake formation process. With this paper, we are including all of the data produced by these prior experiments and an explanation of the data in the Supplementary Information

Aggregates, Formational Emergence, and the Focus on Practice in Stone Artifact Archaeology

The stone artifact record has been one of the major grounds for investigating our evolution. With the predominant focus on their morphological attributes and technological aspects of manufacture, stone artifacts and their assemblages have been analyzed as explicit measures of past behaviors, adaptations, and population histories. This analytical focus on technological andmorphological appearance is one of the characteristics of the conventional approach for constructing inferences from this record. An equally persistent routine involves ascribing the emerged patterns and variability within the archaeological deposits directly to long-term central tendencies in human actions and cultural transmission. Here we re-evaluate this conventional approach. By invoking some of the known concerns and concepts about the formation of archaeological record, we introduce notions of aggregates and formational emergence to expand on the understanding of how artifacts accumulate, what these accumulations represent, and how the patterns and variability among them emerge. To infer behavior that could inform on past lifeways, we further promote a shift in the focus of analysis from the technological and morphological appearance of artifacts and assemblages to the practice of stone use. We argue for a more rigorous and multi-level inferential procedure in modeling behavioral adaptation and evolution

Major Fallacies Surrounding Stone Artifacts and Assemblages

While lithic objects can potentially inform us about past adaptations and behaviors, it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of all of the various processes that influence what we recover from the archaeological record. We argue here that many assumptions used by archaeologists to derive behavioral inferences through the definition, conceptualization, and interpretation of both individual stone artifact forms and groups of artifacts identified as assemblages do not fit squarely with what we have learned from both ethnographic sources and analyses of archaeological materials. We discuss this in terms of two fallacies. The first is the fallacy of the “desired end product” in stone artifact manufacture, which also includes our ability to recognize such end products. The second fallacy has to do with the notions that lithic assemblages represent simple accumulations of contemporary behaviors and the degree to which the composition of the depositional units we study reliably match the kinds of activities that took place. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer a comprehensive set of new methodologies and theoretical perspectives to solve these problems, our goal here is to stress the importance of rethinking some of our most basic assumptions regarding the nature of lithic objects and how they become part of the archaeological record. Such a revision is needed if we want to be able to develop research questions that can be addressed with the data we have available to us

Shape Variation in Aterian Tanged Tools and the Origins of Projectile Technology: A Morphometric Perspective on Stone Tool Function

BACKGROUND: Recent findings suggest that the North African Middle Stone Age technocomplex known as the Aterian is both much older than previously assumed, and certainly associated with fossils exhibiting anatomically modern human morphology and behavior. The Aterian is defined by the presence of 'tanged' or 'stemmed' tools, which have been widely assumed to be among the earliest projectile weapon tips. The present study systematically investigates morphological variation in a large sample of Aterian tools to test the hypothesis that these tools were hafted and/or used as projectile weapons. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both classical morphometrics and Elliptical Fourier Analysis of tool outlines are used to show that the shape variation in the sample exhibits size-dependent patterns consistent with a reduction of the tools from the tip down, with the tang remaining intact. Additionally, the process of reduction led to increasing side-to-side asymmetries as the tools got smaller. Finally, a comparison of shape-change trajectories between Aterian tools and Late Paleolithic arrowheads from the North German site of Stellmoor reveal significant differences in terms of the amount and location of the variation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The patterns of size-dependent shape variation strongly support the functional hypothesis of Aterian tools as hafted knives or scrapers with alternating active edges, rather than as weapon tips. Nevertheless, the same morphological patterns are interpreted as one of the earliest evidences for a hafting modification, and for the successful combination of different raw materials (haft and stone tip) into one implement, in itself an important achievement in the evolution of hominin technologies

A Morphometric Assessment of the Intended Function of Cached Clovis Points

A number of functions have been proposed for cached Clovis points. The least complicated hypothesis is that they were intended to arm hunting weapons. It has also been argued that they were produced for use in rituals or in connection with costly signaling displays. Lastly, it has been suggested that some cached Clovis points may have been used as saws. Here we report a study in which we morphometrically compared Clovis points from caches with Clovis points recovered from kill and camp sites to test two predictions of the hypothesis that cached Clovis points were intended to arm hunting weapons: 1) cached points should be the same shape as, but generally larger than, points from kill/camp sites, and 2) cached points and points from kill/camp sites should follow the same allometric trajectory. The results of the analyses are consistent with both predictions and therefore support the hypothesis. A follow-up review of the fit between the results of the analyses and the predictions of the other hypotheses indicates that the analyses support only the hunting equipment hypothesis. We conclude from this that cached Clovis points were likely produced with the intention of using them to arm hunting weapons

Controlled experiments in lithic technology and function

From the earliest manifestations of tool production, technologies have played a fundamental role in the acquisition of different resources and are representative of daily activities in the lives of ancient humans, such as hunting (stone-tipped spears) and meat processing (chipped stone tools) (Lombard 2005; McPherron et al. 2010; Lombard and Phillipson 2010; Brown et al. 2012; Wilkins et al. 2012; Sahle et al. 2013; Joordens et al. 2015; Ambrose 2001; Stout 2001). Yet many questions remain, such as how and why technological changes took place in earlier populations, and how technological traditions, innovations, and novelties enabled hominins to survive and disperse across the globe (Klein 2000; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Henshilwood et al. 2001; Marean et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2012; Režek et al. 2018).Projekt DEALinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Rethinking use-wear analysis and experimentation as applied to the study of past hominin tool use

In prehistoric human populations, technologies played a fundamental role in the acquisition of different resources and are represented in the main daily living activities, such as with bone, wooden, and stone-tipped spears for hunting, and chipped-stone tools for butchering. Considering that paleoanthropologists and archeologists are focused on the study of different processes involved in the evolution of human behavior, investigating how hominins acted in the past through the study of evidence on archeological artifacts is crucial. Thus, investigat ing tool use is of major importance for a comprehensive understanding of all processes that characterize human choices of raw materials, techniques, and tool types. Many functional assumptions of tool use have been based on tool design and morphology according to archeologists’ interpretations and ethnographic observations. Such assumptions are used as baselines when inferring human behavior and have driven an improvement in the methods and techniques employed in functional studies over the past few decades. Here, while arguing that use-wear analysis is a key discipline to assess past hominin tool use and to interpret the organization and variability of artifact types in the archeological record, we aim to review and discuss the current state-of-the-art methods, protocols, and their limitations. In doing so, our discussion focuses on three main topics: (1) the need for fundamental improvements by adopting established methods and techniques from similar research fields, (2) the need to implement and combine different levels of experimentation, and (3) the crucial need to establish standards and protocols in order to improve data quality, standard ization, repeatability, and reproducibility. By adopting this perspective, we believe that studies will increase the reliability and applicability of use-wear methods on tool function. The need for a holistic approach that combines not only use-wear traces but also tool technology, design, curation, durability, and efficiency is also debated and revised. Such a revision is a crucial step if archeologists want to build major inferences on human decision making behavior and biocultural evolution processes.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Comparing the use of meat and clay during cutting and projectile research

Diverse disciplines investigate how muscular tissue (i.e. ‘meat’) responds to being cut and deformed, however, large-scale, empirically robust investigations into these matters are often impractical and expensive. Previous research has used clay as an alternative to meat. To establish whether clay is a reliable proxy for meat, we directly compare the two materials via a series of cutting and projectile tests. Results confirm that the two materials display distinct cutting mechanics, resistance to penetration and are not comparable. Under certain conditions clay can be used as an alternative to meat, although distinctions between the two may lead to experimental limitations