Residue and Microwear Analyses of the Stone Artifacts from Schoningen

Home , Hafting

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309287885

Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artifacts from Schoningen

Article · January 2015 DOI: 10.15496/publikation-11830

CITATIONS READS 2 30

4 authors:

Veerle Rots Bruce Hardy Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) Kenyon College

83 PUBLICATIONS 976 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 931 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jordi Serangeli Nicholas John Conard University of Tuebingen University of Tuebingen

76 PUBLICATIONS 346 CITATIONS 345 PUBLICATIONS 5,907 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The European saber-toothed cats (Homotherium latidens) of Schöningen View project

Large-scale excavation and research in the lower paleolithic Sites of Schöningen View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Veerle Rots on 27 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2015) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artifacts from Schoningen€

* Veerle Rots a, , Bruce L. Hardy b, Jordi Serangeli c, Nicholas J. Conard d a Service de Prehistoire, University of Liege, Quai Roosevelt 1B, 4000 Liege, Belgium b Department of Anthropology, Palme House, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USA c Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Eberhard Karls Universitat€ Tübingen, Burgsteige 11, 72070 Tübingen, Germany d Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoecology, Burgsteige 11, 72070 Tübingen, Germany article info abstract

Article history: Stone artifacts from Schoningen€ 12 and 13 were examined microscopically to identify residues, wear, and Received 16 July 2013 manufacturing traces in order to clarify their possible anthropogenic origins and their function. We Accepted 12 July 2015 present evidence showing that the stone tools were used for working wood and hide and for cutting Available online xxx meat. The results from the use-wear and residue analyses proved complementary in several instances. Suggestive evidence of hafting was observed on a few pieces, which is particularly interesting given the Keywords: identiﬁcation of wooden hafts at the site. The positive results of this analysis demonstrate the efﬁcacy Lower Paleolithic and potential of these techniques for Lower Paleolithic sites such as Schoningen.€ Tool use © Hafting 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Functional analysis

1. Introduction analysis can potentially provide a more specific identification of the material being worked (Rots and Williamson, 2004). The analyses Schoningen€ is well-known for its preserved wooden artifacts presented here were not initially envisioned as a comparison of and spears (Thieme, 1997); its main sequence likely falls in MIS 9 methods. Indeed, the two analysts examined overlapping but not and dates to ca. 300 ka BP (Behre, 2012). Residue and microwear identical samples. In combining the two sets of overlapping results, analyses were performed on a part of the stone artifacts of we hope to provide a clearer picture of stone tool function at Schoningen,€ derived from both Locality 12 (Damm) and the Schoningen.€ waterlogged Locality 13 (Sockel). Eighteen stone artifacts were available for analysis from Locality 12, a low-density zone, next to 2. Methods 14 artifacts, mostly very small fragments or chips, from the high- density Locality 13. Preservation at Locality 13 is very good, but Microwear and residue analyses aim to determine the use of the number of recovered artifacts is very small. The artifacts from stone tools based on a microscopic examination of stone tool sur- fl Locality 12 consist of akes, tools, and one small core, but their faces. While both methods are complementary, they examine preservation state is variable. different types of functional evidence. Residue analysis focuses on The two sets of analyses performed here were conducted the identification of the fragments of plant material (i.e., starch, independently (V.R.: microwear, B.H.: residue analysis). Previous fibres, etc.) or animal remains (i.e., hair, grease, collagen, etc.) that research on both archaeological (Hardy et al., 2001) and ethno- may still adhere to a stone tool after its use. Various methods exist archaeological (Rots and Williamson, 2004) material has demon- to examine these residues on stone tools. A first step is generally strated that microwear and residue analyses can provide the screening of stone tool surfaces during which the localisation of complementary information and a more complete understanding residues is mapped per area on the stone tool (e.g., Hardy, 1994, of tool function. Microwear is important in establishing the zone of 2004; Lombard, 2008). This part of the procedure generally takes use, use-action, and category of worked material, while residue place under reflected light with a metallurgical microscope (magnifications up to 1000), but it may be preceded by an examination under a stereomicroscope (magnifications up to 56). Residue fi * Corresponding author. identi cations are based on the visible morphological characteris- E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Rots). tics and a comparison of these with a reference collection. The http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.07.005 0047-2484/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Rots, V., et al., Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artifacts from Schoningen,€ Journal of Human Evolution (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.07.005 2 V. Rots et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2015) 1e11 potential of other methods, for instance infrared spectroscopy, to was also performed (camera: AxioCam MRC). Some additional aid in the identification of the residues in this stage of the proce- pieces were examined at Liege using a Zeiss V12 binocular micro- dure are currently being explored (Prinsloo et al., 2014). Subse- scope (magnifications up to 120), a Zeiss V16 zoom macroscope quently, the localized residues may be extracted with pipets or with (magnifications up to 160), and a Zeiss AxioImager microscope an ultra-sonic cleaning device, after which they can be examined with reflected light (magnifications up to 500). While the analysis under transmitted light (e.g., Fullagar et al., 2006). This procedure under low magnification focused mainly on scarring patterns and allows for a larger variety of morphological characteristics to be more general observations of polish, striations, and rounding, the observed, as well as the application of biochemical protocols that analysis with a metallurgical microscope allows a more detailed may assist in the residue identification (e.g., Matheson and Veall, analysis of these patterns. Interpretations relied on the experi- 2014). Advantages are that extracted residues can be preserved mental reference collection of the analyst consisting of about 2000 for future analysis and that the stone tools can be handled without experimental artifacts (e.g., Rots, 2010). This reference collection is a further risk of residue contamination. comprehensive and includes reference tools for traces of production, For microwear analysis, different procedures exist. In contrast to transport, use, prehension, and hafting. Experimental tools were residue analysis, microwear studies focus on the actual stone tool used on a variety of materials, both in the hand and hafted in various surfaces and their transformation as a result of use. During use, the arrangements for various durations. surface may be altered and polished yielding rounding and/or Based on their preservation state, artifacts were subdivided into microchipping (edge scarring) that may be specific to the materials four categories: (1) very fresh, (2) light alterations, (3) moderate these tools were in contact with (e.g., Keeley, 1980; Vaughan, 1985). alterations, and (4) patinated and abraded. Items from the fourth In contrast to residue analysis, tools generally need to be cleaned in category were not considered to be suitable for microwear analysis. order to remove adhering deposits or residues, explaining why a This variable preservation is no doubt a factor of the site's forma- microwear analysis has to be performed after a residue analysis. tion process (Stahlschmidt et al., 2015). Frost fractures are frequent Based on elaborate methodological explorations during the last and generally prove to be posterior to the tool's production. As a century (e.g., Keeley, 1974, 1980; Odell, 1980, 1981), present-day consequence, the original working edge of some tools has dis- microwear studies commonly combine the use of a stereomicro- appeared entirely (e.g., ID 17961) or partially (e.g., ID 18606). scope and a metallurgical reflected-light microscope (e.g., Rots, Recent damage was observed to some degree, some of which could 2010), but a scanning electron microscope (SEM) is also be directly attributed to the excavation based on the associated frequently used (e.g., Olle and Verges, 2014). More recently, the metal scratches. The latter damage has a more limited impact than potential of confocal microscopes in aiding distinctions between frost damage and it did not affect the analysis. various use polishes is being explored (e.g., Evans and Donahue, 2008). Similar to a residue analysis, all wear identifications rely 3. Results on comparisons with an experimental reference collection. The microwear and residue analysis of the Schoningen€ tools The functional analysis succeeded in identifying evidence of use were independently performed by two separate analysts (Table 1). on various artifacts, as well as providing clues towards their pre- To prevent contamination, tools were first examined for residues hensile mode. Some pieces were too damaged by natural processes and subsequently for microwear traces. The researchers only to allow interpretation. compared results after both analyses were completed, thereby allowing for independence in the lines of evidence collected. Such a 3.1. Locality 12 procedure strengthens the reliability of the results in cases of correspondence between both methods. Occasional disagreement in Eighteen tools from Locality 12 were examined in total, by at the results from the two analysts is informative in view of further least one procedure: 17 tools were submitted to residue analysis developments of both methods. and 12 tools were examined for microwear evidence. The residue analysis was performed by Bruce Hardy using Dino- The first tool analysed was a core tool (ID 18628), which is Lite Digital Microscopes with reflected light (AD-413ZT, magnifi- slightly altered (category 2; Fig. 1a). This artifact was not examined cation 20e220; AM4013ZT4, magnification 430e490). Images for residues, but use-wear evidence was observed on one edge. It were recorded using DinoCapture 2.0 software. Additional macro- can be attributed to a scraping and perforating motion on a scopic images were recorded using a Nikon Coolpix 995 digital medium-hard to hard material. camera. The location of any possible residue was recorded on a line Another tool analysed was a transverse scraper on flake that was drawing of the artifact. Distribution of the residue on the artifact proximally thinned (ID 18064). Its preservation is not ideal (cate- surface can provide valuable evidence to help determine if the gory 3), but some wear evidence was observed (Fig. 2). The tool can residue is use-related. Residues that could be identified include be tentatively interpreted as a wood shave, similar to other exam- hair, feathers, skin, bone, plant tissue, wood, and starch grains. ples that are regularly observed at Middle Palaeolithic sites (Rots, Residues were identified based on comparison with a comparative 2009). No wood-related residues were, however, observed. There collection of experimental stone-tool replicas and published ma- is suggestive evidence of hafting, but it is insufficiently diagnostic terials (Brunner and Coman,1974; Catling and Grayson, 1982; Brom, to be certain. 1986; Beyries, 1988; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Hoadley, 1990; A small flake with limited retouch (ID 15920) was well- Fullagar, 1991; Teerink, 1991; Hather, 1993; Hardy, 1994; Kardulias preserved (category 1; Fig. 1b). It shows an irregular damage and Yerkes, 1996; Williamson, 1996; Hardy and Garufi, 1998; pattern with limited polish stains. However, there is no convincing Pearsall, 2000; Haslam, 2004; Dove et al., 2005; Fullagar et al., evidence for use. This agrees with the observed absence of residues. 2006). An intrusively retouched double sidescraper, proximally thin- The microwear analysis was performed by Veerle Rots, using the ned (ID 18631) was altered (category 3). In spite of the alteration, equipment available at the Institüt für Ur- and Frühgeschichte of the use evidence was observed that corresponds to either an impact University of Tübingen. A Euromex binocular microscope (magnifi- motion or a high-pressure perforation (Fig. 3). An impact motion is cations 10e60) and a Keyence digital microscope VHX-500F were most likely, given the presence of a dorsal spin-off and a ventral used for the first stage of the analysis, and where relevant an analysis large and intrusive step-terminating scar associated with a number under a Zeiss AxioImager A1 microscope (magnifications 25e500) of smaller impact scars. These distally initiated ventral scars seem

Table 1 Summary of the results from the residue and microwear analysis. Pieces with ID numbers in bold were examined for both use-wear and residues.

ID ID details Macro preservation Residues recovered Residues interpretation Microwear traces Microwear (1 ¼ well to 4 ¼ bad) interpretation Use Hafting Use Hafting

104 Scho€ 13 II-4 402/29-16 e None 0 Unknown/unused eee(Not examined) 995 Scho€ 13 II-4 682/28-7 e None 0 Unknown/unused eee(Not examined) 2900 Scho€ 13 II-4 687/19-8 e Wood, plant 0 Scraping wood eee(Not fibres examined) 3738 Scho€ 13 II-4 688/21-50 e Bone or plant 0 Scraping bone or plant? eee(Not tissue, possible examined) resin 4114 Scho€ 13 II-4 689/17-1 e Plant fibre, 0 Scraping plant eee(Not plant tissue examined) 10935 Scho€ 13 II-4 716/34-1 e Bone or plant 0 Scraping bone or plant? eee(Not tissue, possible examined) resin 15654 Scho€ 13 II-4 689/22-44 e Plant tissue 0 Scraping plant eee(Not examined) 15920 Scho€ 12 II-1 2/484-4 1 None 0 Unknown/unused Limited polish 0 Unused stains, non-use 16402 Scho€ 12 II 14/489.3 Collagen, plant 0 Cutting plant and animal e (Not ee(Not tissue examined) examined) 16403 Scho€ 12 II-1 Bone 0 Scraping bone eee(Not examined) 16520 Scho€ 12 II-2 19/486-4 1 Wood 0 Cutting wood 0 0 Unused 16575 Scho€ 12 II-7 Red staining 0 Unknown/unused eee(Not examined) 17444 Scho€ 12 II-4 904/616-1 1 None 0 Unknown/unused Cutting use- None; sliced Meat cutting wear scars, distinct polish for hand- held use 17922 Scho€ 12 II-4 674/1 1 Plant fibre 0 Unknown/unused Hide use-wear 0 Hide working 17961 Scho€ 12 II-2 849/624-1 3 Wood 0 Scraping gymnosperm Important frost 0 Frost fractures fragment, plant damage fibre, plant tissue 17981 4 e (Not ee(Not examined) Edge damage Edge damage Heavily examined) associated with weathered, distal fracture traces of important pressure, possible part of percussion implement 18064 Scho€ 12 II-2 854/634-1 3 None 0 Unknown/unused Suggestive but Wood shave insufficiently diagnostic 18065 Scho€ 12 II-2 None 0 Unknown/unused eee(Not examined) 18605 Scho€ 12 II-1 Plant tissue, Hafted based Cutting plant and animal eee(Not collagen, resin on resin examined) 18606 Scho€ 12 II-2 3 Hair fragments, 0 Cutting hide Hide use-wear 0 Frost fractures, collagen dry hide knife 18613 Scho€ 12 II-1 22/490-2 2 Plant fibre, 0 Cutting wood 0 0 Unused plant tissue 18624 Scho€ 12 II-4 Wood Hafting based Hafted, scraping wood eee(Not on abraded examined) ridge 18628 2 e (Not 0 Use-wear 0 Scraping/ examined) perforating medium-hard to hard material 18631 Scho€ 12 II-4 859/639-1 3 Plant tissue, 0 Scraping plant Impact wear Suggestive but Impact motion/ starch grain (e.g., spin-off, uncertain given hafted step- alteration terminating scars) 18632 Scho€ 12 II-2 855/622-1 4 Plant fibre 0 Unknown/unused 0 0 Unused 25487 Scho€ 13 II-4 639/14-30 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused 25365 Scho€ 13 II-4 694/13-29 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused 25364 Scho€ 13 II-4 694/13-28 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused 25488 Scho€ 13 II-4 693/14-31 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused Scho€ 13 II-4 695/24 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused 25375 Scho€ 13 II-4 694/14-36 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused 25373 Scho€ 13 II-4 694/14-37 1 eee(Not examined) 0 0 Unused

Figure 1. Macroscopic pictures of a selection of examined tools: a) core tool (ID 18628), b) small flake (ID 15920), c) sidescraper (ID 17961), d) small core, patinated (ID 18632), e) medial fragment of double sidescraper, heavily weathered (ID 17981), f) small flake, well-preserved (ID 16520), g) small flake (ID 18613). to have resulted in a complex distal dorsal fracture (terminating in tool part (category 3; Fig. 1c). Recent damage was also observed. the dorsal spin-off). Suggestive evidence of hafting was observed, There are no indications of hafting. Wood residues were observed but it remains very uncertain given the alteration. Nevertheless, on the dorsal face and these were interpreted as resulting from a there appears to be a clear separation between a distal zone with use as wood scraper (Fig. 4a). Such an interpretation would be distally initiated damage and a proximal zone with laterally initi- confirmed by the dorsal edge wear pattern, the initiations of which ated damage, which is consistent with hafting. Based on the residue are cut through by the ventral frost fracture. However, plant tissue analysis, this piece was interpreted as having been used for and fibres were also observed on the ventral face where they are scraping plant material. However, this interpretation does not seem not linked with use; they are positioned on a surface that detached to correspond to the observed edge wear pattern. Based on the by natural processes following the manufacture and use of the latter, it is likely that the observed proximal plant tissue and starch piece (Fig. 4b). It is therefore doubtful that all of the residues grain are linked with the possible hafting of this piece. A fragment observed on this tool are use-related. of plant tissue found on the distal left ventral edge could be due to Another sidescraper on a flake (ID 18606) proved heavily impact contact with wood or could be incidental to use. damaged due to frost action (category 3). Frost fractures occur on A sidescraper (ID 17961) proved difficult to analyse due to frost the distal left edge and the entire right edge (Fig. 5). On the pre- actions that removed the entire ventral surface (e.g., it cuts through served functional edge (proximal and medial left edge), the use- initiations of the retouched edge), as well as a large part of the right wear evidence corresponds to a use as a dry hide knife (Fig. 5).

Figure 2. Macroscopic picture with wear evidence on ID18064: a) abrupt edge scarring from use on dorsal scraper-head (20), b) possible hafting wear on ventral medial right edge (200).

Figure 3. Macroscopic picture with wear and residue evidence on ID8631: a) intrusive step-terminating bending fracture on dorsal distal left point (20), b) step-terminating spin- off fracture on dorsal distal point (20), c) feather- and step-terminating bending scars on dorsal distal point (20), d) fragment of vessel element or tracheid within bulbar scar (220, cross-polarized light), e) unidentiﬁed plant ﬁbre on the ventral proximal surface (485).

There are no indications of hafting. This interpretation is confirmed seem logical, in particular given the small size of the lithic assem- by the residues that were observed on the same edge, hair frag- blage. It nevertheless remains a mere assumption in the absence of ments on the ventral left edge, and hair and collagen on the dorsal more supporting wear evidence or residues. left edge. Based on the sometimes extensive nature of the dorsal An inversely retouched sidescraper on a large hinge-terminating damage associated with this knife, in particular in the proximal flake was very well-preserved (ID 17922). The hinge termination is zone, it is possible that this artifact could have first functioned as a a result of production. The right edge (retouched) shows evidence butchering knife and that most traces of this use could have been of use, even though traces are not very explicit (Fig. 6). Evidence is removed by a subsequent use on hide. The dorsal wear pattern more prominent on the dorsal right extremity that appears to would not contradict such an interpretation and the use of one tool correspond to a use in hide working. There are no indications of through different stages of the processing of animal remains would hafting. Based on the residues, a use of the same edge on plants was

A well-preserved small flake (ID 17444, category 1) shows use- wear evidence on its distal edge caused by use as a hand-held knife for cutting soft material, possibly meat (Fig. 7). On the ventral proximal right edge, sliced scars associated with a distinct polish were observed. These traces could be the result of use; however, these traces could also be linked with prehension (Rots, 2004, 2010). No residues were preserved on this piece. Previous research has suggested that animal residues may be underrepre- sented due to differences in preservation (Hardy et al., 2001). A small core (ID 18632) with some preparation preserved on the left edge was heavily altered and patinated (category 4; Fig. 1d). There were no indications of use based on wear traces. Residues (plant fibres on the ventral distal extremity) were nevertheless observed. One of these was observed within a recent removal, suggesting that it is not related to the original use of the piece. It is therefore likely that the plant fibres were incidental and that the core remained unused. The analysis of a double sidescraper on a medial flake fragment (ID 17981) was significantly hampered by the weathered preservation state of the piece (category 4; Fig. 1e). Nevertheless, edge damage was observed in association with a distal fracture and seems to have occurred under heavy pressure. In combination with additional damage on the edges, it appears that this piece could have been part of a (hafted) percussion implement. Unfortunately, its preservation state is too poor for any firm conclusions. This piece

Figure 4. Macroscopic picture with residue evidence on ID17961: a) wood residues was not examined for residues. from wood scraping, b) plant tissue and fibres not related to use (due to natural A well-preserved small flake (ID 16520) did not show any processes). reliable wear evidence of use (Fig. 1f). Some faint polish stains were observed that do not appear to be functional in cause. Sig- proposed based on plant fibres on the dorsal face inward from the nificant metal wear was observed, caused by the contact with right edge. Plant use is not supported by the use-wear evidence. It is excavation tools or the sieve. Based on the presence of a wood possible that the plant fibre was incidental or could have been part residue on the dorsal distal end, this piece was interpreted as used of additives used in hide working. for cutting wood. However, the specific edge damage pattern that

Figure 5. Macroscopic picture with wear and residue evidence on ID18606: a) small feather- and step-terminating scars from use on ventral medial left edge (20), b) use polish and rounding on ventral medial left edge (200), c) minor scarring from use on (retouched) dorsal proximal left edge (20), d) hair fragment on ventral proximal left edge (220).

Figure 6. Macroscopic picture with wear evidence on ID17922: a) small feather- and step-terminating scars with bending initiations on dorsal distal right edge/point (30), b) use polish and associated rounding on ventral distal point (200).

Figure 7. Macroscopic picture with wear evidence on ID17444: a) use polish evidence on ventral distal edge (200), b, c) use polish with use scarring on two different locations of same edge (200), d) possible prehension wear on ventral proximal right edge (200). should be associated with such a use was not observed, nor do the A small ﬂake (ID 18613, category 2) did not show any reliable faint polish stains correspond to such a use. Given the lack of evidence of use (Fig. 1g). Only some metal gloss was observed that correspondence between the methods here, the function of the is a result of contact with excavation equipment. Plant ﬁbres and tool is unknown. plant tissue were observed on the ventral face of the retouched

that it was used on bone or contacted bone repeatedly during butchery (Fig. 8). A ﬁnal ﬂake (ID 16575) has an area of additive red residue from an unknown source. No other evidence is visible and the patterning of the residue is not indicative of use.

3.2. Locality 13

For this locality, both analysts did not examine the same set of tools due to the fact that only a portion of the tools was available in Tübingen at the time of the microwear analysis. Part of the residue analysis was performed in Schoningen,€ where a different set of tools from Locality 13 could be analysed. In spite of their good preservation, the artifacts (n ¼ 7) of Locality 13 that were examined for microwear traces were very small and did not deliver relevant observations in terms of use or hafting. It appears to be production waste. The set of tools (n ¼ 7) examined for residues, by contrast, did provide indications of use. The observed residues consist of plant fibres, bone fragments, and possible evidence of resin. A retouched flake (ID 2900) shows numerous plant and wood fragments along the retouched edge on the dorsal (trapped in flake scars) and ventral surfaces. This suggests this tool was used for woodworking. A second flake (ID 4114) has plant fragments located in the same areas on the dorsal and ventral surfaces. The plant fragments are not diagnostic of any specific category of plants. ID 3738 is a scraper with two plaques of additive residue visible macroscopically (Fig. 9). Under magnification, the plaques lack internal structure and appear to be resinous in nature when compared to other experimental and archaeological material (Hardy and Garufi, 1998; Hardy and Svoboda, 2010). Some frag- Figure 8. Macroscopic picture with residue evidence on ID16403: a and b) bone residues interpreted as being linked with use, either on bone or due to a repeated contact ments of bone or plant material are trapped in the resin but lack with bone in butchering. diagnostic specificity. Given the distribution of the resin and other residues, it is not possible to determine if the resin is related to hafting or to some other use of the tool. No other use-related res- edge (distal area) that were attributed to use in cutting wood. The idues were observed. use-wear analysis did not reveal any polish formation in that area. ID 10935, a large pointed flake, has additive residues similar in Perhaps the plant residues could be linked with production or appearance to those on ID 3738. Similar residues that may be bone retouch, or use contact must have been so limited that no use polish or plant are also seen. The distribution of resin on this piece is not formed. Alternatively, it resulted from incidental contact. suggestive of hafting and may therefore be present due to use in Three remaining artifacts from Locality 12 were only examined scraping plants. fl for residues. A small ake (ID 16402) has collagen along one edge One small flake (ID 15654) has plant fragments adhering along fi and plant bres scattered along the same edge on both the dorsal one edge on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces (Fig. 10). The and ventral surfaces. The distribution suggests that the artifact was patterning of these residues (along the same edge on both dorsal fl used to cut plants and possibly animals as well. Another ake (ID and ventral surfaces) suggests that they may be related to use in 16403), unfortunately heavily weathered, has bone fragments plant processing. along one edge on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces suggesting The final two artifacts (ID 104 and ID 995) have no residues.

4. Discussion

While only a few pieces showed diagnostic evidence of use, the analysis did provide interesting results. Preservation is quite good given the age of the sample. Microwear and residue analyses on sites this age are still rarely performed. Only a few sites provide comparative data in terms of preservation. Initial microwear analyses already proved successful for older assemblages, such as the analysis of the early stone tools (1.5 million years ago) from Koobi Fora (Kenya; Keeley and Toth, 1981). Hand axes from the Lower Palaeolithic open-air site of Boxgrove (UK; about 500 ka) provided identiﬁable use-wear evidence (Mitchell,1998). More recently, older assemblages have received renewed attention from use-wear analysts, such as the Oldowan from Kanjera South (Kenya; Lemorini et al., 2014), the Acheuleo-Yabrudian laminar assemblage of Qesem Cave (Israel; 382e207 ka; Lemorini et al., 2006), and the early Figure 9. Macroscopic picture of ID3738 with indication of the residue location: pla- Middle Palaeolithic assemblage of Biache-St-Vaast (France; about ques of additive residue that may be resinous in nature. 250 ka; Rots, 2013). These sites are located in quite different

Figure 10. Macroscopic picture with residue evidence on ID15654: plant fragments interpreted as being due to a use in plant processing. environments and in spite of some post-depositional alterations, similar observations can be made on other implements. This could wear traces proved to be sufficiently preserved to allow in- shed an entirely new light on the evolution of hafting and the terpretations. Residue analyses on early sites are extremely rare: expertise of the early humans who were doing it (Barham, 2013). both the Oldowan assemblage of Sterkfontein (South Africa; 1.7e2.0 The association of these tools with wooden implements, some of million years ago; Loy, 1998) and the Acheulean hand-axes from which have been interpreted as handles (Thieme, 1997), makes Peninj (Tanzania; 1.5 million years ago; Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., these observations all the more interesting. 2001) showed residues of plant remains. These studies were not The results from the use-wear and residue analysis proved to be combined with use-wear analysis and the association of the residue complementary in several instances; this is a significant and with the actual use of the tool (e.g., production, use, hafting) could informative result given the age of the assemblage. However, in a not be confirmed. number of cases no agreement was obtained. In all these cases, the Use-wear features and residues observed on the Schoningen€ residues concerned plant fibres. Experiments are on-going to tools reveal the working of different materials, such as wood and examine in detail how this pattern could be explained and whether hide, as well as revealing evidence for cutting meat. Evidence of it concerns a kind of use that does not result in diagnostic wear hide working has rarely been observed for this time period, so this traces (e.g., very short use) or whether other causes (e.g., produc- requires a follow-up in the future. The hide working at Schoningen€ tion strategies, transport of pieces in vegetal containers) could be appears integrated within a more elaborate processing of animal responsible for the deposition of these plant fibres. Based on tissue. The evidence for the processing of animal matter corre- ethnographic examples, it is known that plant residues on artifacts sponds to earlier use-wear observations indicating a predominance can easily result from incidental contact given the abundant plant of butchering activities on early sites, such as at Boxgrove (Mitchell, material that is generally lying around (Rots and Williamson, 2004). 1998), Qesem Cave (Lemorini et al., 2006), and Biache-St-Vaast The fact that some plant residues were observed within recent (Rots, 2013). The woodworking evidence is very similar to what scars or on frost fractures faces (formed after the tools' manufacture was observed for early and later Middle Palaeolithic sites (Beyries, and use) suggests they have a non-functional, post-depositional 1988; Anderson-Gerfaud, 1990; Rots, 2009, 2013; Hardy and origin. It confirms the utility of combining residue analysis and use- Moncel, 2011). Woodworking evidence in the Schoningen€ sample wear analysis, preferably independently performed by different includes a piece used as a kind of ‘shave,’ which corresponds to the analysts, as is presented here. Given the complementary nature of motion required for sharpening spears or manufacturing other the techniques, more reliable and powerful results can be obtained wooden tools. For later periods, such tools proved to have been when they are used together. With regard to microwear, residues hafted (Rots, 2009, 2013). While suggestive evidence of hafting was have the advantage of providing more detailed data. With regard to also observed on the wood shave from Schoningen,€ it is insuffi- residues, wear traces provide the opportunity to confirm the as- ciently diagnostic to reliably infer hafting. Two other pieces from sociation of the residues with the actual use of the tool. In addition, Schoningen€ also showed suggestive hafting evidence. In spite of the wear traces help to distinguish between residues that are linked uncertainties, the mere observation of potential hafting evidence with the direct use of the tool and those that are linked with their from this time period is unique and extremely interesting. A larger production, hafting, or manipulation. Our results stress that care tool sample will need to be examined in order to evaluate whether needs to be taken with all plant fibres observed on tool surfaces;

Please cite this article in press as: Rots, V., et al., Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artifacts from Schoningen,€ Journal of Human Evolution (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.07.005 10 V. Rots et al. / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2015) 1e11 not all of these fibres should be necessarily attributed to a use on Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Tresserras, J., Alcala, L., Luque, L., 2001. plants. Therefore, a thorough and critical examination of the loca- Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). J. Hum. Evol. 40 (4), 289e299. tion and frequency of each residue is essential, before attributing it Dove, C.J., Hare, P.G., Heacker, M., 2005. Identification of ancient feather fragments to use, hafting, or other causes. found in melting alpine ice patches in southern Yukon. Arctic 58, 38e43. Evans, A.A., Donahue, R.E., 2008. Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potential technique for the study of lithic microwear. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35 (8), 2223e2230. 5. Conclusion Fullagar, R., 1991. The role of silica in polish formation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 18, 1e24. Fullagar, R., Field, J., Denham, T., Lentfer, C., 2006. Early and mid-Holocene tool-use € and processing of taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea sp.) and other The two different localities at Schoningen offer varied views of plants at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, the past. The main find horizon of Locality 13 (Sockel) represents a 595e614. research excavation with greater internal site structure and Hardy, B.L., 1994. Investigations of stone tool function through use-wear, residue and DNA analyses at the Middle Paleolithic site of La Quina, France. Ph.D. comparatively high densities of anthropogenic material. This local- Dissertation, Indiana University. ity offers the possibility of understanding behaviors in a larger Hardy, B.L., 2004. Neanderthal behaviour and stone tool function at the Middle context and seeing how artifacts, features, and ecofacts relate to one Palaeolithic site of La Quina, France. Antiquity 78 (301), 547e565. Hardy, B.L., Garufi, G.T., 1998. Identification of woodworking on stone tools through another. Locality 12 (Damm), by contrast, is characterized by low residue and use-wear analyses: experimental results. J. Archaeol. Sci. 25, density scatters of isolated objects. These data result from salvage 177e184. excavation over large surfaces. As such, the locality offers the op- Hardy, B.L., Moncel, M.-H., 2011. Neanderthal use of fish, mammals, birds, starchy plants and wood 125-250,000 years ago. PLoS One 6 (8), e23768. http:// portunity to investigate individual events by looking at the life his- dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023768. tory of singular artifacts. Both kinds of data help to complete the Hardy, B.L., Svoboda, J., 2010. Mesolithic stone tool function and site types in picture of hominin lifeways in northern Europe during the Middle Northern Bohemia, Czech Republic. In: Haslam, M., Robertson, G., Crowther, A., € Kirkwood, L., Nugent, S. (Eds.), Archaeological Science Under A Microscope: Pleistocene. The fantastic preservation at Schoningen, combined Studies in Residue and Ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Tom Loy. University with its varied archaeological nature, allows us a unique insight into of Queensland Press, Queensland, pp. 159e174. the behavior of our remote ancestors. Our analysis shows a variety of Hardy, B.L., Kay, M., Marks, A.E., Monigal, K., 2001. Stone tool function at the activities with a particular emphasis on animal processing and Paleolithic sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III, Crimea: behavioral implications. PNAS 98 (19), 10972e10977. woodworking. The positive results of the microwear and residue Haslam, M., 2004. The decomposition of starch grains in soils: implications for analyses demonstrate the efficacy of these techniques, in particular archaeological residue analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1715e1734. fi when combined, for Lower Paleolithic sites such as Schoningen.€ Hather, J., 1993. An Archaeobotanical Guide to Root and Tuber Identi cation. In: Europe and South West Asia, Vol. I. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Continued excavations and functional analyses will contribute Hoadley, R., 1990. Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. Taunton further insight into the tasks performed at Schoningen€ and into the Press, Newtown. associated behavioral complexity. In particular, the suggestive evi- Kardulias, N., Yerkes, R., 1996. Microwear and metric analysis of threshing sledge flints from Greece and Cyprus. J. Archaeol. Sci. 23, 657e666. dence for hafting will require more detailed examinations in the Keeley, L.H., 1974. Technique and methodology in microwear studiesdcritical re- future. If confirmed in future analyses, it would indicate a much view. World Archaeol. 5 (3), 323e336. earlier appearance of hafted tool technology than commonly Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. believed in Europe, but also elsewhere. While early hafting tech- Keeley, L.H., Toth, N., 1981. Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora, nology has been argued to have been present at Kathu Pan in South Kenya. Nature 293, 464e465. Africa (Wilkins et al., 2012), this evidence is very questionable (see Lemorini, C., Stiner, M.C., Gopher, A., Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R., 2006. Use-wear Rots and Plisson (2014) for a discussion). The evidence at Schoningen€ analysis of an Amudian laminar assemblage from the Acheuleo-Yabrudian of Qesem Cave. Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33, 921e934. is not convincing at this stage, but if confirmed in the future, it would Lemorini, C., Plummer, T.W., Braun, D.R., Crittenden, A.N., Ditchfield, P.W., once again prove that complex technological behaviors are not Bishop, L.C., Hertel, F., Oliver, J.S., Marlowe, F.W., Schoeninger, M.J., Potts, R., associated exclusively with modern humans. 2014. Old stones' song: use-wear experiments and analysis of the Oldowan quartz and quartzite assemblage from Kanjera South (Kenya). J. Hum. Evol. 72, 10e25. Lombard, M., 2008. Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort through the mi- Acknowledgements croscope: micro-residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 26e41. Veerle Rots is indebted to the Fund for Scientific Research Loy, T.H., 1998. Organic residues on Oldowan tools from Sterkfontein Cave, South (FNRS-FRS) and to the European Research Council under the Eu- Africa. In: Abstract of Contributions to the Dual Congress 1998. University of Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, pp. 74e75. ropean Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ Matheson, C., Veall, M.-A., 2014. Presumptive blood test using Hemastix® with ERC Grant Agreement n. 312283 (EVO-HAFT). Work at Schoningen€ EDTA in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 230e241. was funded by the Ministry of Science and Culture, State of Lower Mitchell, J.C., 1998. A Use-wear Analysis of Selected British Lower Palaeolithic Handaxes with Special Reference to the Site of Boxgrove (West Sussex): A Study Saxony and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, CO 226/22-1. Incorporating Optical Microscopy, Computer Aided Image Analysis and Exper- imental Archaeology. University of Oxford, Oxford. Odell, G.H., 1980. Toward a more behavioral-approach to archaeological lithic References concentrations. Amer. Antiquity 45 (3), 404e431. Odell, G.H., 1981. The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable Anderson-Gerfaud, P., 1990. Aspects of behaviour in the Middle Paleolithic: func- hypotheses. J. Field Archaeol. 8, 197e209. tional analysis of stone tools from southwest France. In: Mellars, P. (Ed.), The Olle, A., Verges, J.M., 2014. The use of sequential experiments and SEM in doc- Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective. Cornell Uni- umenting stone tool microwear. J. Archaeol. Sci. 48, 60e72. versity Press, Ithaca, pp. 389e418. Pearsall, D., 2000. Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, Second Edition. Barham, L., 2013. From Hand to Handle. The First Industrial Revolution. Oxford Academic Press, New York. University Press, Oxford. Prinsloo, L.C., Wadley, L., Lombard, M., 2014. Infrared reflectance spectroscopy as an Behre, K.-E. (Ed.), 2012. Die chronologische Einordnung der palaolithischen€ Fund- analytical technique for the study of residues on stone tools: potential and stellen von Schoningen.€ Verlag des Romisch-Germanischen€ Zentralmuseums, challenges. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 732e739. Mainz. Rots, V., 2004. Prehensile wear on flint tools. Lithic Technology 29, 7e32. Beyries, S., 1988. Industries Lithiques: Traçeologie et Technologie. British Archaeo- Rots, V., 2009. The functional analysis of the Mousterian and Micoquian assem- logical Reports International Series, London. blages of Sesselfelsgrotte, Germany. Tool use and hafting in the European Late € Brom, T., 1986. Microscopic identification of feathers and feather fragments of Middle Paleolithic. Quartar 56, 37e66. palearctic birds. Bijdr. Dierkd 56, 181e204. Rots, V., 2010. Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology. Leuven Brunner, H., Coman, B.J., 1974. The Identification of Mammalian Hair. Inkata Press, University Press, Leuven. Melbourne. Rots, V., 2013. Insights into early Middle Palaeolithic tool use and hafting in Catling, D., Grayson, J., 1982. Identification of Vegetable Fibres. Chapman and Hall, Western Europe. The functional analysis of Level IIa of the early Middle New York. Palaeolithic site of Biache-Saint-Vaast (France). J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 497e506.

Rots, V., Plisson, H., 2014. Projectiles and the abuse of the use-wear method in a Thieme, H., 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385, search for impact. J. Archaeol. Sci. 48, 154e165. 807e810. Rots, V., Williamson, B.S., 2004. Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: the Vaughan, P., 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31 (9), Press, Tucson. 1287e1299. Wilkins, J., Schoville, B.J., Brown, K.S., Chazan, M., 2012. Evidence for early hafted Stahlschmidt, M.C., Miller, C.E., Ligouis, B., Godlberg, P., Berna, F., Urgan, B., hunting technology. Science 338, 942e946. Conard, N.J., 2015. The depositional environments of Schoningen€ 13 II-4 and Williamson, B.S., 1996. Preliminary stone tool residue analysis from Rose Cottage their archaeological implications. J. Hum. Evol. (this volume). Cave. South African Field Archaeol. 5, 36e44. Teerink, B.J., 1991. Hair of West European Mammals: Atlas and Identiﬁcation Key. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

View publication stats