Hafting and raw materials from animals. Guide to the identification of hafting traces on stone tools

Veerle ROTS Prehistoric Archaeology Unit Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Geo-Institute Celestijnenlaan 200E (Pb: 02409), B-3001 Leuven, Heverlee (Belgique) [email protected]

Rots V. 2008. – Hafting and raw materials from animals. Guide to the identification of hafting traces on stone tools. [DVD-ROM]1 . Anthropozoologica 43 (1): 43-66.

ABSTRACT Stone tool hafting has been a widely discussed topic, but its identifica- tion on a prehistoric level has long been hampered. Given the organic nature of hafting arrangements, few remains are generally preserved. An overview is presented of animal materials that can be used for haft- ing stone tools, and examples are provided of preserved hafting arrangements made out of animal raw material. Based on the same principles as those determining the formation of use-wear traces on stone tools, it is argued that hafting traces are formed and can be iden- tified. The variables influencing the formation of hafting traces are KEY WORDS discussed. Specific wear patterns and trace attributes are provided for Stone tools, use-wear, different hafting arrangements that use animal raw material. It is hafting, concluded that the provided referential data allow for the identifi- wear pattern, experiments, cation of hafted stone tools on prehistoric sites and the identification animal raw material. of the hafting arrangement used.

RÉSUMÉ Emmanchements et matières premières animales. Un guide pour l’identification des traces d’emmanchement sur des outils de pierre. Le sujet des emmanchements des outils de pierre a été largement discuté, mais leurs identifications à un niveau préhistorique ont longtemps été difficiles. Compte tenu de la nature organique des emmanchements, peu de vestiges sont généralement préservés. Une vue d’ensemble des matières animales qui

1. A slide show with Hide Processing may be viewed on the DVD attached at this volume.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) © Publications Scientifiques du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris. 43 Rots V.

peuvent être utilisées pour emmancher les outils de pierre sera présentée et des exemples de conservation d’emmanchements faits de matière première ani- male seront fournis. Fondé sur les mêmes principes que ceux qui déterminent l’observation des traces d’usure sur des outils de pierre, on procédera à l’obser- vation puis montrera que la détermination des traces d’emmanchement est possible. Les variables qui influencent la formation de traces d’emman- chements seront discutées. Les formes spécifiques des traces et leurs particula- MOTS CLÉS Outils de pierre, rités seront présentées pour différents emmanchements en matières premières usures, animales. Les données obtenues créent un véritable référentiel pour permettre emmanchement, l’identification des outils en pierre emmanchés et les matières animales utili- organisation des traces, expérimentation, sées pour les emmanchements issus de sites préhistoriques. matières premières animales.

INTRODUCTION the detailed examination of hafting wear on the remaining stone tools. Such an investigation Since the beginnings of prehistoric research, peo- requires a methodology, based on which hafting ple have been interested in what stone tools were traces on archaeological assemblages can be iden- used for. Semenov (1957, english translation tified and interpreted (Rots 2002a, 2003). The 1964) was the first to systematically deal with this methodology necessarily relies on extensive question and to come up with a technique that experimentation in order to examine the charac- made answers conceivable. Starting from the teristics of hafting traces and the variables that observation that stone tool use results in wear may influence their formation (Rots et al. 2001). traces visible on a tool’s edges, he explored the Both direct and indirect evidence of hafting on possibilities of interpreting them with the aid of a stone tools need to be considered, while also microscope. Up to recently, microscopic func- ethnographic material can be informative (Rots tional research has mainly been centred on use- & Williamson 2004). wear traces visible on working edges (active tool Given the focus of the volume, this article dis- parts). Non-active parts were largely neglected, cusses the use of raw material from animals for although these parts may also carry traces worth- the hafting of stone tools in prehistoric periods while exploring: not only technological traces, and the resulting microscopic traces on the stone but also prehension or hafting traces. Hafting has tools. More details concerning the use of other always been a problematic issue in functional raw materials, such as wood or plant materials studies. While hafting was considered an impor- can be found in Rots (2002a). tant topic (Keeley1982), the systematic forma- tion of hafting traces and the possibility to interpret them was seriously doubted. The idea HAFTING AND HAFTING was that hafting could only be investigated based ARRANGEMENTS on preserved remains of hafting arrangements. Since hafts (or handles) are fabricated out of Haft type, hafting method, stone tool placement, organic matter, their preservation depends on cli- stone tool direction and orientation of the active matic conditions and the resulting corpus of pre- part are the main features defining the way in served hafting arrangements is biased. The only which a tool is hafted; they define the type of valid procedure to gain a more adequate insight hafting arrangement used (Stordeur 1987: in the existence and use of hafts is through 11-34). Haft types can be sub-divided in ‘female’

44 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

(or juxtaposed hafts), ‘male’ referring to the way in which contact is made between the stone piece and its handle: a handle can be inserted in the stone tool (‘female’), and a tool can be placed next to a handle (juxtaposed, Fig. 1); the stone tool can be inserted in a handle (‘male’, Figs2 &3). Bindings of some sort — animal-derived or made from plant fibre — are necessary in the lat- ter case. In ‘female’ arrangements, the stone tool needs to be hollowed out. Since this is only possi- ble for ground stone tools, this arrangement is not further considered here. The contact between tool and handle can be direct or indirect, depend- ing on whether or not the stone tool was wrapped for a closer fit. This defines the hafting method. A wrapping may consist of a piece of leather (or other) folded around the stone tool (Fig 4). The F IG.1. — a. Juxtaposed latero-distal hafting arrangement on wrapping is only partial when the tool is wrapped antler; b. Juxtaposed terminal hafting arrangement on bone. after being placed on a handle resulting in direct Photographer: Ludo Cleeren (K.U.Leuven). contact between the stone tool and the haft, but an indirect contact with the bindings. The stone tool can be placed at the end of a straight (or slightly curved) handle (terminal), at the side of a handle (lateral), or at the end of a bent (or elbow) handle (latero-distal). The tool direction can be parallel to the axis of the haft (axial) or perpendi- cular/oblique to it (transversal). And finally, the active part can be oriented parallel, perpendicular or obliquely to the axis of the handle.

THE USE OF RAW MATERIALS FROM ANIMALS FOR HAFTING PURPOSES

Raw materials from animals are readily available, suitable for the fabrication of hafts and for pro- viding all kinds of fixative materials. Below, the available data concerning preserved archaeolo- gical examples, characteristics and fabrication F IG.2. — a. & b. Male terminal hafting in antler; c. Male split procedures are summarized. terminal hafting in antler. Photographer: Ludo Cleeren (K.U.Leuven). H AFTS MADE FROM OSSEOUS MATERIALS Osseous materials include bone, antler, horn and frequently been used to produce hafts up to the ivory, all of which can be used to fabricate hafts. present day. The major advantage is that few Bone and antler are the most relevant ones given adaptations are generally required to transform their wide availability in prehistoric times. In animal matter into suitable hafts. Two basic types general, osseous materials from animals have are relevant to prehistoric material: ‘male’ hafts in

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 45 Rots V.

next to the haft. Both straight and angled (latero- distal) hafts occur. Examples are common for the Palaeolithic and the Final Neolithic period (Barge-Mahieu et al. 1993). On a mechanical level, bone and antler have dis- tinct characteristics, as demonstrated by Currey (1979), MacGregor and Currey (1983) and MacGregor (1985). Their bending strength varies depending on their state (fresh/moist or dry). It is lowest in wet conditions, in particular for antler. In dry conditions, the bending strength of antler is higher than bone. Secondly, the bending strength differs in the longitudinal versus the transversal axis. Overall, bone is much more resistant to bending in its longitudinal axis than in its transversal axis, but this varies accord- ing to the state of the bone. The bending strength of antler is highest in dry conditions and in the longitudinal in comparison to the transversal axis. It is, therefore, better to cut bone and antler with the grain instead of at right angles to the grain as the end result will be far more resistant. Thirdly, bone is more elastic than antler, but based on the stress-strain curve, antler breaks less F IG.3. — Male lateral hafting arrangement in antler. Photographer: Ludo Cleeren (K.U.Leuven). easily than bone, implying that antler has a better capacity to absorb shocks and sudden impact loads (MacGregor1985: 29) and is therefore a very suitable haft for percussion activities.

Bone While bone tools are regularly recovered ( e.g. Clarke 1936, Allain et al. 1993, Camps- Fabrer1982, 1985; Averbouh et al. 1995, Camps- Fabrer et al. 1998), bone hafts remain rare. Most of them were found in the Near East and date to the Neolithic period ( e.g. El Ouad, Jarmo, Kebara, Oumm ez-Zoueitina, Tell Sawwan: Cauvin 1983), but some older European examples exist (Barge- Mahieu et al. 1993). The large majority of these hafts were used for mounting sickle blades. Exceptions for the Magdalenian are a bone handle F IG.4. — a. Leather wrapping with leather bindings; b. Leather bindings; c. Wet leather bindings. Photographer: Ludo Cleeren for the lateral hafting of microliths (Allain & (K.U.Leuven). Descouts 1957) and a burin hafted in the extrem- ity of a bone handle (Grotte de Pekarna (Moravia): which the stone tool is inserted in a hole, a Jelinek 1982). Other exceptions are a certain num- groove or a cleft (“split”) in the haft as well as ber of Mesolithic bone handles, used for terminal juxtaposed hafts in which the stone tool is fixed hafting and generally recovered in the peat bogs

46 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

of Denmark (e.g. Mullerup: Sarauw 1903; and antler during the Late Palaeolithic and Meso- Refsvindinge: Müller1917; Svaerdborg: Friis- lithic period may witness a large-scale use of Johansen 1918-1919; Holmegaard: Bro- bone hafts. holm 1926-1931), but also elsewhere, for instance Germany (Hohlen Stein: Andree 1932). In order Appropriate Parts to mount a tool, the bone was cut laterally, a tech- Bone has a homogeneous and compact appear- nique also used in later periods for the hafting of ance, but remains porous on a very fine scale. It is retouched blades (Camps-Fabrer & Ram- strong under tension whilst remaining flexible seyer1993: Fig. 2). Bird bone fragments proved to thanks to the presence of collagen (O’Connor be used for the mounting of microliths as demon- 1987: 6). Based on the negative effects that heat- strated by examples recovered at Ensdorf, in ing or cooking may have on the mechanical prop- Northern Europe (Clarke 1936). A microlithic erties of bone, bones were probably used while triangle set into a short tubular bone was also found fresh and an occasional heat treatment must have at Tebessa (Algiers) (Menghin 1927). Even after been partial only. This is demonstrated by the the Neolithic period, bone hafts or bone inlays heating of the extremity of bones used in hide were frequently used for different tool classes ( e.g. scraping among the Inuit of Arctic Canada (for MacGregor1985, Sampson 1993). strengthening purposes) (Beyries1997). If bone working existed at Blombos Cave (South The internal structure of bone can be quite Africa) as early as the Middle Stone Age (around varied, depending upon the species, the part of 70,000 years ago) (d’Errico et al. 2001b, the skeleton, and the age of the individual Henshilwood et al. 2001), the first bone hafts (O’Connor1987). Long bones may have been may be much older than is known archaeologi- used preferentially because of the presence of the cally. Evidence of intentional bone use was even medullary cavity that greatly facilitates male haft- found much earlier at for instance Swartkrans ing. This preference is also visible in later periods, (South Africa; 1.8 – 1 million years ago) and as demonstrated by the Roman finds in the rub- Sterkfontein (South Africa, 1.7 – 1.4 bish pits of Augst (Switzerland) (Schmid 1968) million years ago) (Backwell & d’Errico2001, and the Saxon examples from Southampton d’Errico et al. 2001a, d’Errico & Backwell 2003). (England) (Holdsworth1976). Also for tool pro- For the European Old Palaeolithic period, possi- duction, long bones are preferred ( e.g. ble bone artefacts have been recovered, such as Beyries1993). Apart from these, the ribs of big the bone tip from Bilzingsleben (Fundstelle mammals may have been used. They can func- Steinrinne, Germany), fabricated out of the split tion as hafts after being split laterally (Allain et middle part of a straight metatarsus of a large al. 1993: 23). wild horse (Mania & Cubuk1977), even though the human modification of many bone pieces Haft Manufacture from Bilzingsleben has been doubted (Stegu- Male arrangements necessarily dominate among weit2003). Early bone tools were also discovered bone hafts. Long bones are hollow and do not in Italy, for instance at Castel di Guido require much adaptation to be suitable as hafts (Villa1991). ( i.e. terminal hafting), unless a split is made. Bone is one of the easiest available haft materials, They do, however, demand at least a minimal a trait that may have largely stimulated its use. morphological adaptation of the stone tool to be Furthermore, it can be obtained in all sizes and hafted. This is not necessary for a juxtaposed weights allowing the hafting of a large variety of bone haft, in which the stone tool is placed next tools. One disadvantage may be the fact that all to the handle, even though a complete or partial bone hafts must be straight and are therefore im- split can be made. Bones can also be cut laterally possible to use in percussion (i.e. hoeing, adzing). in the longitudinal axis to create a groove in The extensive evidence for the working of bone which a stone tool can be inserted.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 47 Rots V.

This ease in production is a great advantage for combined with “female” wooden handles, such as bone hafts and compensates for the restricted the partially preserved example at Holmegaard variety in hafting arrangements. It is sufficient to (Broholm 1926-1931). The distal part of the select an appropriate size of bone and saw (or wooden handle is usually thicker in order to be able break) off one extremity, or hollow out the bone to secure it in the antler piece. For the Neolithic from the extremity onwards. Fresh bone is a suf- period, the preserved examples consist of sickle ficiently soft material to be cut, but as soon as it hafts ( e.g. Mikov1959, Cauvin 1983, Bar- dries, working it becomes far more difficult Yosef 1987), intermediate pieces, generally for axes (unless weathered bone is used). ( e.g. Ricq-de Bouard1996, Voruz 1997), complete Depending on the exact characteristics of the pre- “male” axe or adze hafts (Giot1958a, 1958b; pared bone haft, it makes different demands on Mellaart 1970, Chastel 1985, Voruz 1997) and the tool’s morphology. Hafting a tool in a cut-off some rare examples of other tool types ( e.g. Cauvin bone extremity requires a tool with a, more or et al. 1987, Egloff 1987). less, oval cross-section. When hollowed out from It is clear that antler is less readily available in the extremity onwards the tool needs to be more comparison to bone: only a restricted number of trapezoidal in cross-section. animals possess antlers, such as deer (roe deer, red deer, reindeer, etc.) and elk, and the supply of Antler shed antlers is seasonal. Given that shed antlers The relatively large number of preserved antler deteriorate if not collected, people must collect hafts suggests that antler was frequently used in seasonally. Rodents and deer may gnaw the haft production. Shed antlers must have been antlers, and weathering and frost may eventually sufficiently available and were probably predomi- totally destroy them. nantly used (Arbogast & Pétrequin 1993), next Based on the fact that reindeer was one of the to cut-off antlers (Voruz 1997). A piece of antler main animals hunted during the Upper and Late can serve as a complete haft, or it can be used in Palaeolithic period (Benecke 1995: 77), one may combination with wood, as demonstrated by pre- expect antler to have functioned as hafts in those served axe handles ( e.g. Guilaine 1976, Ricq-de- time periods. Also during the Mesolithic period, Bouard1996). Its great flexibility and strong reindeer antler may have been frequently used. resistance to shocks make antler a preferred mate- During the Neolithic, hunting generally rial for manufacturing hafts, as evidenced by its remained important and antler could still be frequent use as tools used in percussive activities gathered easily. ( e.g. Voruz 1984, Winiger1985). Antler hafts have been recovered more frequently Appropriate Parts than bone hafts, but this may be a result of differ- Depending on the intended use, almost any part ential preservation qualities. While most finds date of antlers can be used for the manufacture of from the Neolithic period, Upper Palaeolithic hafts (Billamboz1977, Allain et al. 1993: 23). examples have been recovered at, for instance, For hafts from a single piece, the tines may have l’Abri de la Fru (France) (Pion 1987). The latter been preferentially used. For hafts combined with yielded an example of a “male” haft without a stone other materials, the attachment zones of tines tool. Magdalenian male split hafts in reindeer may have been preferred thanks to their greater antler have been recovered frequently, for instance strength. For a latero-distal haft, the staving with at La Garenne (France) (Allain & Rigaud1993). a part of the tines is required. For the Mesolithic period, some Northern Euro- pean finds can be mentioned, such as the latero- Haft Manufacture distal“male”haftfromNórre-Lyngby(Clarke1936: Like bone, antler does not require an important 80), or the numerous intermediate pieces (Friis- investment for a transformation into an appropri- Johansen 1918-1919). The latter are generally ate haft (Billamboz1977). However, the varia-

48 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

tion in size and morphology is restricted. “Male” edge. Horn is generally worked when heated, for hafts must have been common, as they are instance after immersion in a warm solution or straightforward to produce by removing the applying delicately controlled heat (Mac- spongeosa within the antler compacta (Billam- Gregor1985: 66), since this softens the horn and boz1977, Beugnier1997). The stone tool to be largely facilitates processing. hafted necessarily needs to be adapted to the pro- It seems unlikely that horn was frequently used as duced hole. Among the Caribou Inuit, both haft before the start of the Neolithic period. It “male” and juxtaposed antler hafts are in use, for could only be obtained from the woolly rhinoc- instance for adzes (Birket-Smith1929). “Male” eros ( Coelodonta antiquitatis ), present in Western hafts are most frequent and all stone tools are Europe during colder periods, and aurochs ( Bos adapted proximally before insertion. Juxtaposed primigenius), which were regularly available. In hafts were used for the larger and cruder blades. the Neolithic period, however, the availability of From historical sources ( e.g. Roman and horn significantly increased (cattle, sheep, goat) Medieval periods) and experimentation, antler is and probably stimulated its use as haft. known to be difficult to saw because it is solid in cross-section. Therefore, the antler has to be Ivory rotated periodically during sawing in order to Nowadays, ivory is extremely difficult to obtain. reduce the friction that results as the area and Based on its morphology, “male” hafts are depth of the cut grows (MacGregor1985: 55, expected to be frequent. Ivory has excellent work- Greep 1987: 3). The final separation is usually ing properties (MacGregor 1985: 38), but it is done by breakage. Soaking in water or in an acid not as widely available as bone or antler. Only a solution (MacGregor1985) can largely facilitate few animals possess ivory and these are restricted the processing of antler (Billamboz1977). It tem- to certain regions and periods. In Western porarily changes the physical p.roperties of antler Europe, it may have been used for hafts in colder and makes it easier to saw. Z urowski (1974) periods in which the presence of, for instance, demonstrated that red deer antler could be cut mammoth ( Mammuthus primigenius) has been like wood after six weeks of immersion and that it demonstrated. But similar to antler, the amount regained its hardness within four days. of potential haft material that can be obtained Immersion softens the spongeous mass inside the per animal is limited. Together with its large size antlers to the extent that it can be removed with- and low manageability, the large-scale use of out sharp tools. ivory seems doubtful. Governed by size, only the Except a few parts of reindeer antler, most antler extremity could function as a male haft, all other pieces are curved. This characteristic may some- parts would have had to be used in a juxtaposed times be unfortunate in view of haft production, fashion, if used at all. The tendency of ivory to but antler can be reshaped (straightened) after split into cones (MacGregor 1985: 17) may have soaking. Casseyas (pers. comm.) obtained good been considered as a great advantage for “male” results after heating it above a fire. Straightening hafts. or reshaping antler obviously facilitates its use as hafting material. H AFTS MADE FROM SOFT ANIMAL MATERIALS ( WRAPPINGS) Horn Soft animal materials such as leather, sinew and The processes in working horn are different from guts, or soft plant fibres can be used as a special bone and antler. Pawlik (1993) did not experi- kind of haft, in particular wrappings. Given the ence many problems during his horn experiments protection from sharp edges that a wrapping pro- and he considered horn to be relatively soft, elas- vides and the slight augmentation in pressure that tic and easy to work. Working dry horn appeared can be exerted, a wrapping should be considered to be ineffective and quickly dulled the tool’s as a special type of hafting. An example is the

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 49 Rots V.

scraper wrapped in a piece of hide fixed with a plant order to produce a sticky tar. This assumption binding recovered at Guitarrero Cave (Peru) was guided by the discovery of large amounts (Lynch1980: 239-241). The use of wrappings of birch bark at various sites (Mercier & hasbeen documented archaeologically ( e.g. Seguin 1939, Vogt1949, Clark1954) and is sup- Stordeur 1987) and ethnographically ( e.g. ported by chemical analyses (Binder et al. 1990, Tindale 1983, Beyries1997). The bindings or Heron et al. 1991, Charters et al. 1993, wrappings can also be immersed in resin to fix them Pawlik 1996, Regert & Rolando 1996, Regert et more strongly (Tindale 1983, Bocquet1984). al. 1998). In many cases, however, secure identi- fications are lacking (Albasini-Roulin 1987, H AFTS MADE FROM ADHESIVES Egloff 1987, Ramseyer1987, Anderson et In some cases, the non-active part of a lithic tool al. 1992). In the beginning, mainly infrared spec- may be covered with a ball of resin, similar to troscopy was used for discovering the composi- some preserved bone awls (Müller-Beck1965, tion of adhesives (Funke 1969), but later on gas Stordeur 1987: fig. 6). Just like a wrapping or chromatography and mass spectrometry have bindings, resin protects the hand from the sharp proven more successful and allowed the charac- edges and prevents it from being cut. terisation of biomarkers (Regert et al. 1998). Lupeol, lupenone and betulin are the principal F IXATION AGENTS identified components (Binder et al. 1990, Adhesives have been used extensively in the past Hayek et al. 1991, Heron et al. 1991, Charters et and are still in use today on a very large scale ( e.g. al. 1993). Latter analyses are only possible when Barquins1993). In general, adhesives (used as sufficient adhesive material is available. If not, fixation agent) do not resist high pressure well: one has to rely on an analysis with the scanning they crack or shatter. However, if special care is electron microscope in combination with an given to increasing their flexibility ( e.g. by adding energy dispersive analysis of X-rays ( e.g. beeswax), the resulting tool may potentially be Pawlik 1996). Most of these studies concerned used in high-pressure motions, such as adzing. Neolithic and protohistoric adhesives (Binder et Several types of adhesives can be used. The most al. 1990, Regert 1996, Regert et al. 1998). well known is resin or tar, but also hide and The earliest evidence of resin use was discovered blood (Birket-Smith1929) can be transformed at the late Middle Pleistocene site of Campitello into an adhesive. (Italy) (Mazza et al. 1996). For the Mousterian, Resin, which is a plant exudates, can be used as evidence was discovered at Königsaue and such, it can be loaded (addition of sand, earth or Kärlich (Germany): resin fragments as well as other abrasives), or one can obtain tar by the resin with imprints of both a wooden haft and a destructive distillation of resinous wood or bark. stone tool were found (Mania & Toepfer1973). Pure natural resins are actually too brittle to serve The resin remains from Königsaue have been as good bonding agents. Pure resin is a lustrous AMS dated to 43,800 ±2100 BP and 48,400 ± translucent brown substance, softening at 60°C 3700 BP (Hedges et al. 1998: 229). At and becoming a viscous fluid around 120°C. Bocksteinschmiede (Germany) hafting resin was Upon further heating it changes irreversibly to a also found (Bosinski 1985). Evidence for the use hard black mass, which is brittle and unsuitable of adhesives is more numerous for the Upper for hafting purposes. Consequently, fillers are Palaeolithic ( e.g. Leroi-Gourhan & Allain 1979, required (loading). The spinifex resin prepared Leroi-Gourhan1983), Late Palaeolithic ( e.g. by Australian Aborigines contains about 80% Rekem (Belgium): Lauwers 1985, Caspar & fillers by weight in the form of vegetal fibre, DeBie 1996) and Mesolithic period, especially ochreous dust and sand (Dickson 1981: 163- for projectiles ( e.g. Star Carr (United Kingdom): 167). Birch tar is most commonly used for haft- Clark1950, 1954). For the Neolithic period, evi- ing. It is assumed that birch bark is heated in dence is abundant and mainly concerns sickle

50 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

blades and knives, but also awls ( e.g. Charavines: shocks and thus suitable for hafting percussion Mallet 1992), projectiles ( e.g. Burgäschisee- implements. As long as it is not left lying in direct Südwest BE: Wyss 1973; Chalain, Clairvaux: sunshine, it performs very well. It behaves as a Beugnier1997) and sidescrapers ( e.g. Clairvaux, rigid body with no observable tendency to crack. Chalain: Baudais1987). When signs of loosening occur after prolonged While adhesives used in Europe mostly come use, it is sufficient to add a bit of wax into the from plants (resin, tar or fruit juice), bitumen groove, making sure it penetrates. (natural petroleum tar) is often used in the Near There are not many references to the use of hide as East (Coqueugniot1983, Bar-Yosef 1985, adhesive ( e.g. Witthoft1958). There is one clear Connan & Deschene 1991, 1992; Barquins description of its production process through the 1993) where it is widely available in solid and liq- Primitive Skills Group, where Ball describes the uid form (Schwartz and Hollander 2000). The process as follows: shredded bits of deer hide are oldest evidence for the use of adhesives, in partic- placed in a crock-pot, covered with water, and ular bitumen, dates back to the Middle cooked for 24 hours. The liquid then needs to be Palaeolithic, at least to 42,500 years ago (Boëda et poured off through a cloth and placed in a shallow al. 1996, 1998). Evidence for its use was recov- pan where it simmers until it has reduced in vol- ered at the site of Umm el Tlell and Hummal ume and attained a consistency of thin warm (Syria) (Boëda et al. 1996, 1998). Traces of bitu- syrup. This syrup can be used as glue and if neces- men were discovered away from the cutting edge sary dried into a kind of gelatine and kept for years. on 15 artefacts and one artefact respectively. The artefacts (including different tool types) are asso- B INDINGS ciated with Neanderthal remains. Bitumen was Bindings are primarily made from bark ( e.g. apparently most often used in its pure state, Danish and Alpine Neolithic), ochred leather although sporadic additions of proteinaceous ( e.g. Capsian), leather immersed with adhesives, materials have been documented (Connan1999). or simple leather ( e.g. recent Neolithic, Near Collagen was occasionally used as evidenced at East) (Stordeur 1987: 15). the Neolithic site of Nahal Hemar Cave (Connan et al. 1995). Collagen is the structural fibrous Hide and leather protein of tissues in humans, animals, and fish. It First of all, the exact meaning of the terms hide, gains adhesive properties when degraded into skin and leather should be highlighted. Hide refers gelatine by treatment with hot water. to the pelt of large animals ( e.g. cattle, horses), Instead of resin, loaded beeswax (70% fillers by while skin refers to the pelt of small animals ( e.g. weight) can be used, which softens at a lower tem- sheep, goat, rabbit). Leather refers to animal pelt perature than resin and is more pliable that has been preserved or dressed for use. Several (Dickson 1981). Beeswax has a rather definite processes can be used: tanning, curing, smoking, melting point, about 65°C, above which it is etc. Within the group of tanned leathers, one can highly fluid. Pure wax shrinks considerably upon make further distinctions on the level of the tan- cooling and, for this reason, as well as for added ning agent used. In vegetable tanning, bark, mechanical strength it should always be used with flower, gallnut, etc. are used. Curing refers to a loading. When used as a bonding agent, the stone treatment with oil or fat. No chemical transforma- head should be warmed to the melting point of the tion takes place; it is a conservation treatment that wax (or higher to remove surface water) (Dickson allows the hides to be used in clothing, etc. 1981). The wax is soft enough to penetrate small Smoking is used to fix tanning agents. Here, a dis- interstices and is easier to finish off than resin. The tinction is only made between hide and leather. mechanical behaviour of loaded wax is different More details concerning different processes of hide from loaded resin. Wax is much softer and more working can be consulted in Audouin-Rouzeau pliable than resin, making it more resistant to and Beyries (2002).

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 51 Rots V.

Hide or leather bindings can be used in various ously while being exposed to air and varying states, independent of their processing. Dry and weather. Buried conditions can be expected to moistened hide/leather are considered. The main favour preservation, in certain (stable) condi- difference between them is the strength of the fix- tions. Waterlogged environments, for instance, ation and the amount of potential friction in the are favourable for leather preservation, but not haft. Both aspects are related. For dry bindings, for hide (Van Driel, pers. comm.). the strength of the fixation depends on how tight the bindings can be attached. In practice, it is Guts and sinews impossible to eliminate all friction. When bind- The characteristics mentioned above for moist ings are moistened they expand and they contract bindings count for guts or sinew as well. Both again upon drying. Consequently, if bindings are should be applied when wet and contract upon applied when moist, the shrinkage secures the drying. The strength of the fixation and the tool against its haft and little friction is possible amount of potential friction is equal to that of thereafter. Thanks to their adhesive character, moist hide. Intestines and tendons were widely moist bindings are easier to attach and they stick available throughout prehistory. No special treat- to each other when dried, reducing the risk of ment, apart from cleaning, is required. loosening during use. Re-moistening the bind- In comparison to hide, guts and sinew are less ings facilitates de-hafting. versatile. Sinew for instance, can only be used as Hide and leather were readily available through- binding or as thread for sewing and snares ( e.g. out prehistory. Scavenged, hunted or domesti- Van Gijn 1990: 41), while hide is highly func- cated animals all possess hides that can provide tional and can be used for clothing, tents, etc. It good quality bindings. The manufacturing is not excluded that hide is curated and that other process of bindings is straightforward and does materials are chosen as bindings, if possible. Due not demand a lot of skill or a highly specialised to their equal efficiency and performance in hide treatment. Ethnographically, the use of securing lithic tools to hafts, guts and sinew may hide/leather bindings is widely documented. be preferred to hide. However, the manufacturing process is only The fabrication of sinew thread is described for described in a few cases. Birket-Smith (1929) the Caribou Inuit (Birket-Smith1929). The relates from the Caribou Inuit that bindings sinew is softened in water and scraped free of should not be fabricated out of belly hide because flesh remains. It can be spread out on a board to it is too thin. The fresh hide that is to be trans- dry, in order to facilitate the splitting process. If formed into bindings is cleaned of flesh and hair one wants a thicker cord, several sinew threads remains, but not scraped thin. The Inuit cut out are plaited. their bindings in a spiral when the skin is frozen. Just as with leather, there are few preserved exam- The bindings are then briefly immersed in water, ples of bindings made from guts or sinew because stretched with the hands and dried. these materials degrade easily under normal dry- Only few examples of preserved hide/leather site conditions. One example is a hafted arrow bindings can be noted (Groenman-van Waa- (Müller1917). teringe 1992), such as an adze mounted in a wooden handle with the aid of leather bindings Fibres and strings from the Neolithic site of Byblos (Cauvin 1968). Early evidence for the production and use of Hide/leather degrades far more rapidly than hard fibres and strings is scant. Figurines can be con- animal matter and the preservation chances are sidered the oldest indirect evidence of fibres in slim. This is exemplified by the experimental the form of represented woven skirts etc. These construction of a leather tent (Jourdan & date back to about 25,000 years ago (Soffer et Leroy1987). The leather cover was completely al. 2000). More evidence was recovered in Russia degraded after only one year, in this case obvi- and consists of lines impressed in bits of clay that

52 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

date to about 22,000 years ago. Similar impres- haft a tool is determined by the importance sions of wavy lines in bits of clay were discovered and/or frequency of a task within a society. Only in Moravia and were attributed to a woven rope for functions necessitating hafting is the situation (Soffer et al. 2000). Also for the Mesolithic likely to differ, but even then one can opt for a period, there is indirect evidence: remains of a very simple and straightforward arrangement ( e.g. fishing-net were found at Korpilathi (Finland) a direct juxtaposed lateral hafting on a straight (Pälsi1920). More recently, direct evidence is wooden handle) instead of a very complex available from the Lascaux cave, where fragments arrangement demanding an important invest- of rope were sticking to the cave wall and date to ment. The simplicity or complexity of the hafting at least 15,000 years ago (Glory 1958, Leroi- arrangement both depend on the haft type and Gourhan & Allain 1979). In Israel, evidence was on the fixation method opted for. In terms of discovered that dates to about 19,000 years ago. their design, different criteria can be compared For the Mesolithic period, the use of bast fibre in between the hafting arrangements. hafting arrangements is documented for arrows (Evans1897). For the Neolithic period, more R ELIABILITY evidence is available. The hafted parts of some The reliability of a haft depends on the hafting awls from Charavines were first covered with arrangement and the intended use. The more birch tar after which vegetal fibres (roots or twigs) pressure is exerted on the tool, the higher the risk were secured in the tar. In some cases, a wooden of failure. Few problems generally occur with haft is added, which is fixed with pine twigs and hafts used in low-or moderate-pressure tasks. blocked with fine thread ( e.g. Bocquet1984, Hafts rarely split or fracture. This contrasts with Pétrequin & Pétrequin 1988, Mallet1992). At high-pressure tasks, such as hoeing or adzing, Clairvaux Station III (Jura, France), the use of during which cleavage occurs far more fre- flax for the production of cords and fibres is doc- quently. For such actions it is important to umented, as well as oak bark thread for plaiting choose a hafting arrangement, and in particular (Pétrequin 1986). ahaft material, that is resistant to shocks. Several tree and plant species possess materials — Therefore, bone is less suitable than wood or e.g. bark, fibres — suitable for the production of antler. If resin is used, it has to be made more strings and rope. Lime tree ( tilia ) is often used for flexible than in the case of low-pressure activities. fibre production. Yew has also been documented, Several attempts were made in prehistory in order for instance at Seeberg-Burgäschisee-Süd (Müller- to reduce the chances of haft fracture, which is Beck1965), as well as flax (Pétrequin & exemplified by the evolution of wooden Pétrequin 1988: 22-23). Agave and yucca fibre Neolithic axe handles (Schibler1981, 1997; have been identified by residue analysis Pétrequin 1986, Pétrequin & Pétrequin 1988): (Sobolik 1996). The production process of cord an intermediate piece of antler was one of the has regularly been described ethnographically ( e.g. solutions to reduce the chance of cleavage. Antler Dickson1981,Stewart1984).Generally,thefibres is actually frequently used as a way to protect are twisted in order to increase strength. wooden hafts ( e.g. spears, axes) from damage ( e.g. Caribou Inuit: Birket-Smith1929, Schibler1981, 1997; Pétrequin 1986; Pétrequin DESIGN THEORY AND HAFTING & Pétrequin 1988). MATERIALS The reliability of hafts does not only depend on the raw material, it also differs between the differ- The manufacturing process of handles can ent haft types. Male hafts have a higher chance of demand an important investment depending on splitting than juxtaposed hafts, as the pressure on the raw material choice and the requirements of the haft is directed from inside towards the out- the intended use. It is likely that the decision to side and around most of its circumference. This

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 53 Rots V.

makes this haft type particularly vulnerable. antler needs to be transformed. The use of resin Juxtaposed hafts are rarely damaged. If no stop- for fixation purposes can extend the flexibility of ping ridge is present, hardly any haft damage a haft, as it allows the hafting of a wider variety of occurs, be it that the fixation is less secure. If a tool morphologies. One simply needs to adapt ridge is present, this part may split off after exten- the amount of resin and make sure it fills all sive use, but a binding may prevent this. Next to cavities. head fractures, also proximal fractures should be Flexibility is, however, also important on the considered, but such fractures seem unlikely if level of the stone tool morphology. A juxtaposed the tool is not used in a violent way. In ethno- haft allows for more varied tool morphologies graphic accounts, haft fractures seem to occur than a male haft. For the latter, the stone tool regularly, but on the other hand, hafts are often generally needs to be adapted in order to fit the used for decades and inherited from one genera- haft. tion to the other ( e.g. Beyries1997, Brandt & Weedman1997, Rots & Williamson 2004). V ERSATILITY If versatility is interpreted as “multifunctionality” M AINTAINABILITY as proposed by Hayden et al. (1996: 13), then When a haft splits, little repair is usually possible. hafts may potentially restrict the amount of pos- The temporary solution is to tie both parts sible uses. After all, some haft materials are not together with leather or vegetal bindings, but the suitable for certain functions. A tool hafted in haft will need to be replaced at one point. If the bone is less versatile due to the difficulty of high- haft is secured with bindings as soon as a fissure is pressure motions, while antler is less restrictive. visible, haft cleavage can be delayed. The possi- Also, the haft morphology has an impact on the bility of adapting a broken or damaged haft into tool’s versatility. Straight hafts with a terminal another functional haft depends on the haft type hafting do not allow adzing or chopping, while and haft material in question. When a male haft latero-distal hafts do not allow cutting. With splits, it may be transformed into a juxtaposed regards to haft type, more functions are possible haft (with stopping ridge). Bone is the least main- with a male haft than with a juxtaposed one. tainable as a result of its size and restricted mor- It is clear that the versatility of a tool is influ- phological variety. When it breaks or splits it is enced by several parameters and that it can only difficult to repair or transform into a functional be adequately judged based on the individual haft. case.

F LEXIBILITY T RANSPORTABILITY On the level of haft flexibility, the haft material The hafting arrangement itself does not have an seems the main determining factor. Bone is less important influence on the transportability of a flexible than wood with a limited number of pos- tool, mainly the size (length) and weight are deci- sible haft morphologies. Latero-distal hafts are sive. Latero-distal hafts can be balanced on the not possible and one is restricted on the level of shoulder and easily transported ( e.g. Pétrequin & size and weight. The only possibility to introduce Pétrequin 1993). a larger variety is to use animal bones from ani- mals of different ages or species. One advantage L ONGEVITY of bone is the ease to produce male hafts thanks Longevity refers to use life, which is an aspect to the hole present in long bones. The flexibility that is difficult to evaluate. There are two major of antler is more important than bone. Although components for each hafting arrangement, the one is restricted in terms of size and weight, all stone tool and the haft, both of which should be morphologies are theoretically possible. evaluated separately. The use life of a stone tool is Occasionally, the original morphology of the very short, in spite of resharpening possibilities,

54 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

in comparison to the potential use life of a each variable, experiments were performed in handle. The short use life of a stone tool is less which all other variables were kept constant. important when the fixation procedure is The resulting wear pattern was systematically straightforward allowing easy replacements. After compared, which allowed the proposition of dis- all, most stone tools are quickly made and stocks tinctive criteria, useful for archaeological deter- can be prepared if necessary. Hafts on the other minations. It proved possible to distinguish hand are only discarded when they are no longer between hand-held and hafted tools and between functional due to intensive wear or breakage different hafting arrangements (Rots 2004, (beyond repair). Based on ethnographic data, it 2005). Blind tests were performed in order to, is known that hafts are often inherited from one amongst others, examine the applicability of the generation to another ( e.g. Konso (Ethiopia): experimental framework to archaeological condi- Brandt & Weedman1997, Rots & William- tions (Rots et al. 2006). son 2004) confirming their extensive use life. The main results concerning the exact character- Hafts are thus considered as valuable items that istics of hafting wear produced in the case of a are carefully curated. The long use life immedi- contact with hafting materials out of animal mat- ately compensates for the required investment, ter are summarised below. Data are organised which is probably an important factor in the according to the determining dominant variable. decision to haft a tool. H AFT MATERIAL IMPACT Similar to the formation of use-wear traces, the THE HAFTING WEAR PATTERN haft material influences the trace morphology FOR HAFTING MATERIALS OUT OF ( e.g. polish: morphology, brightness, linkage, etc.; ANIMAL MATTER scarring: morphology, size, distribution, etc.). Given the high similarity of bone and antler on a Given the doubts concerning the formation of use-wear level, there are few differences what the hafting traces and the possibilities to derive valid hafting trace pattern concerns. In general, a inferences from them, an extensive experimental bone/antler haft polish is not very intrusive and program was launched in order to examine the itremains restricted to the higher zones of the issue of hafting wear in more detail (Rots et microtopography (Fig. 5c, d). Scars frequently al. 2001, Rots 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2004, 2005). have a narrow initiation, abrupt terminations and More than 400 experimental tools were produced a good definition. The ease of determining the that were used on various worked materials exact haft material depends on the intensity of (earth, hide, wood, bone, antler, etc.), with vari- the hafting traces and obviously increases the bet- ous actions (adzing, grooving, scraping, drilling, ter developed the hafting traces are. For short etc.) and that were hafted with different hafting uses or low-pressure actions, a distinction materials (wood, bone, antler, etc.) in various between different haft materials, in particular hafting arrangements or were used in the hand. between wood and bone/antler, is generally diffi- Different variables were isolated that proved to cult. The traits of bone/antler haft wear are sum- influence the formation process of hafting traces. marised in Table 1. Dominant variables determine the hafting trace formation process while secondary variables only H AFT TYPE IMPACT cause variations on the existing pattern (Rots & The haft type determines the distribution of the Vermeersch2004). Dominant variables are the hafting traces over the stone tool. Depending on tool’s use and the hafting material and arrange- the haft type, the haft material makes contact ment used. Secondary variables are the raw mate- with both faces and the edges (“male”), both rial coarseness, the presence of retouch, the tool’s faces only (“male” split), or one face only (juxta- morphology, etc. In order to test the impact of posed). The remaining tool parts are in contact

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 55 Rots V.

F IG.5. – a. Sliced into scalar scar; b. Sliced scar; c. Antler haft polish on dorsal ridge; d. Well-developed antler haft polish on dorsal ridge; e. Leather bindings polish on dorsal ridge; f. Well-developed leather wrapping polish (indirect contact with wooden haft) on dorsal ridge. Photographer: Veerle Rots (K.U.Leuven).

56 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

with bindings. This differential distribution of a T ABLE 1. — Distinctive trace attributes of bone/antler haft wear. particular kind of traces over the stone tool is an important distinctive criterion to distinguish Trace attributeHard animal matter between haft types. In addition, the impact of a Polish particular haft type on a tool’s edges differs polish morphologycf. usewear greatly resulting in quite distinctive scarring typical morphology appears at moderate patterns. A “male” hafting obviously has the most development important impact on the tool’s edges, given that polish development quickly moderately developed the stone tool is often blocked in the haft under polish extension low presence pressure and that the edges are in contact with a tends to be concentrated on outer edge/ridge hard material. Any pressure resulting from use results in an important pressure on the edges Scarring within the hafting arrangement. Consequently, scar initiation narrow =present scar termination abrupt scarring is generally important in the case of scar definition moderate to well male-hafted tools. This contrasts with juxtaposed hafting arrangements in which the pressure on Bright spots the edges is significantly reduced on the condi- bright spot amount few to moderate bright spot size moderate tion that the edges do not protrude from the haft (haft width is larger than tool width). If the edges Striations protrude, scarring will be more intensive. striation amount few to moderate striation orientation perpendicular However, bindings result in very typical scarring Rounding ( e.g. sliced scars, sliced into scalar scars, scars with insignificant bent initiation, Fig. 5a, b) allowing straightforward distinctions. “Male” split hafting arrangements are grouped in between male and juxtaposed arrangements. What the pressure on the lateral B INDING MATERIAL IMPACT edges concerns, the result is similar to juxtaposed The binding material impact is highly similar to arrangements. What the faces concerns, the pat- what was noted for the haft material impact. The tern is similar to “male” arrangements: there is binding material determines the hafting trace only one kind of polish on both faces. morphology, similar to use-wear formation. For The impact of leather bindings or a wrapping on bindings, polish is the most distinctive trace type a stone tool is limited. The hafting wear pattern (Fig. 5e), while scarring serves as supportive evi- is therefore a mixture between a distribution that dence. Wet leather bindings and intestines lead is guided by the position of the hand during use to the poorest polish development. This is a con- and trace characteristics that are reminiscent of sequence of the shrinkage upon drying resulting binding use ( e.g. sliced scars). Polish is on average in a strong fixation with little friction. One poorly developed and scars are generally small. A could pose that these bindings allow the most clear limit in the trace pattern, representing the “efficient” fixation, but this is not entirely cor- boundary of the wrapping, is often visible. rect, as not each function demands a well- A scheme that summarises the most valuable secured tool. On the contrary, some movement attributes for an interpretation of the hafting in the haft often prevents fractures. It largely arrangement is always a compromise. Never- depends on the tool’s use: in high-pressure theless, an attempt is made in Table 2: it includes motions, a strong fixation may be a drawback the main traits and can form a useful aid for mak- and favour fractures, while for mechanical ing hafting inferences. As is clear from this table, drilling a strong fixation is a necessity for effi- polish and scarring form the main trace types that cient tool use. Wet leather bindings or intestines allow a distinction between different haft types. are an advantage when well-secured tools are

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 57 Rots V.

T ABLE 2. — Distinctive traits per hafting arrangement.

Juxtaposed Male splitMale Leather Trace attribute hafting hafting hafting wrapping

Polish number of polishes two: haft +bindingstwo: haft +bindingsone: haftone: bindings; sometimes two: prehension polish polish frequency haft =bindingshaft >bindingsonly haftonly bindings (> prehension polish) polish morphologycf. usewear cf. usewear cf. usewear cf. usewear opposition dorsal versus ventralcentre tool versus no opposition no opposition (only edgeswith butt: prehension polish) concentration haft ventral contact: most dorsal medial ridge,dorsal ridges, none polish proximal & haft limitbulbmedial edges, ventral butt concentration binding dorsal contact: edgesnone no real polish dorsal ridgesconcentrations

Scarring Scar morphology * sliced presentpresentabsent (exception:present perforating, drilling) * crushing lowlowhigh low Morphological detail * sliced into scalarpresentpresentabsent (exception:present scars perforating, drilling) Scar initiation * straight into curved presentpresentabsent (exception:present perforating, drilling) * curved presentpresentabsent (exception:present perforating, drilling) * twisted presentpresentabsent (exception:present perforating, drilling) Scar termination * snappresentpresenttends towards «rare» present * featherpresentpresenttends towards «rare» present * hinge tends towards «rare»tends towards «rare»presenttends towards «rare» * step presentpresentpresentlimited presence * verticalpresentpresenttends towards «rare» present * superposition tends towards «rare»tends towards «rare»presenttends towards «rare» Scar size not distinctivenot distinctivenot distinctivenot distinctive Scar depth not distinctivenot distinctivenot distinctivenot distinctive Scar intrusiveness * intrusive scars presentpresenttends towards «rare» present Scar definition not distinctivenot distinctivenot distinctivenot distinctive Scar distribution * alternating tends towards «rare»rarepresentabsent * bifacialabsentabsentpresentabsent * continuous rarerarepresentrare Scar pattern * crushed initiationsrarerarepresentrare * (inverse) skewed presentpresentpresentabsent saw pattern * clear intrusion/notchrarerarepresentrare Scar interpretability moderatemoderatehigh high

58 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

required. It is clear that care should be taken T ABLE 3. — Distinctive traits for binding material identifications. with linking fixation to “efficiency”, the LeatherWet leather/ demands of each task are different and need to Trace attribute be judged independently. The main differences bindingsintestines in wear characteristics caused by the binding Polish material are summarised in Table 3. polish morphologycf. usewear, but cf. usewear slightly brighter I MPACT OF WRAPPING USE polish development tends to betends to be low The use of a leather piece in which the tool is moderate to well wrapped before being mounted in or on a haft polish linkage tends to be well tends to be low influences the subsequent formation of hafting polish extension several extensions,tends to be traces. The use of a wrapping has several advan- preferentially borderconcentrated and inner surfaceon outer edge tages, as it reduces the amount of friction in the haft and enhances fixation, it reduces the chance polish interpretability tends to be moderatetends to be low of bindings being cut, etc. For male hafts, it Scarring allows the use of tools with some size differences Scar morphology in one and the same haft. A small tool size can be * sliced scars presentpresent compensated by a larger piece of leather, which * crushing presentpresent ascertains that the tool remains well fixed in its Scar initiation haft. Its use on an ethnographic level is attested. * straight into curvepresentpresent In Siberia for instance, scrapers are often fixed in * curved presentpresent the hole of a wooden haft with the aid of a piece * twisted presentpresent of leather (Beyries1997). Scar termination The use of a wrapping has a notable impact on * superposition frequentpresent the formation of hafting polish and scarring, Scar definition not significantminor tendance and to a more limited extent also rounding, to frequent largely independent of the haft type used. In well-defined scars general, a wrapping reduces the amount of trace formation following the reduced friction that takes place within the haft. The effect on polish is mainly morphological, resulting in a THE IMPACT OF TOOL USE (WORKING kind of mixed polish depending on the hafting ANIMAL MATTER) ON THE FORMATION material surrounding the wrapping. When the PROCESS OF HAFTING TRACES secondary contact is with a hard haft material, the polish will have a morphology correspon- W ORKED MATERIAL ding to the material out of which the wrapping The influence of the worked material on the is made, while the polish distribution will be formation of hafting traces rests within the trace determined by the secondary contact with a intensity mainly. The harder or more resistant hard haft (Fig. 5f). The effect on scarring con- the worked material, the better developed the cerns both its intensity and morphology. On a hafting traces will be. This implies that hafting morphological level, the use of a wrapping has traces will be less developed when working hide a smoothening effect on the resulting scars, than when working bone or antler, following a while their intensity significantly decreases. reduced pressure that is exerted on the stone tool Rounding is slightly increased when a wrap- by the haft. ping is used. The impact of wrapping use for This worked material impact is independent of juxtaposed arrangements is summarised in the action, hafting material and hafting arrange- Table 4. ment used. Only for polish, a change in hafting

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 59 Rots V.

T ABLE 4. — Distinctive traits for the identification of a wrapping and one in the most proximal zone of the stone use (for juxtaposed arrangements). tool. In between these two areas, few hafting traces are formed. This is a consequence of the Trace attributeWrapping named lever effect, resulting in a back-and-forth Macroscopic pressure in the two mentioned zones. For rotat- scarring decrease ing actions such as drilling or perforating, there is gloss decrease also a clear opposition in the wear pattern, but in Microscopic polish this case between the centre of the stone tool and polish morphology mixed polish the edges, independent of the location in longitu- polish development not significant dinal section. This opposition is formed by a con- polish extension slightly more extensive centration of different trace types. Polish (and intrusive) dominates the centre of the stone tool, while Microscopic scarring hardly being present on the edges, while scarring Number of damaged tool parts decrease (significant) is only concentrated on the edges. Scar intensity minor decrease The most important distinctive traits are sum- Scar morphology marised in Table 5. The identified impact of the * sliced minor decrease action does not influence the general inter- (insignificant) pretability of the traces or the distinction * nibbling increase between haft types, even though it is obviously * crushing decrease (significant) * elongated absent (needs true that hafting traces are generally best devel- confirmation) oped in the case of high-pressure actions. Scar initiation * narrowdecrease Scar termination CONCLUSION * non-abrupt (snap, feather)increase * abrupt (hinge, step) decrease * superposition decrease Animal material has formed an important raw Rounding minor increase material for hafting from the start, depending obviously on the environmental context. Next to several archaeologically preserved examples, a hafting wear study allowed the identification of arrangement obliterated worked material- the use of animal matter in other archaeological induced patterning. This stresses the importance cases, where no hafts were preserved ( e.g. of examining all trace types for making valid Rots 2005). Animal matter has the major advan- interpretations. tage of being easily available, flexible and useful in different ways, i.e. for the fabrication of hafts A CTION as well as for fixation purposes. In addition, the The action undertaken has a notable impact on procurement and preparation of animal matter the hafting trace pattern, which is largely inde- for hafting does not demand an excessive amount pendent of other variables. Its impact is situated of skill. Some animal parts can be used with min- on the level of the hafting trace distribution imal preparation. within the hafted area, i.e. in longitudinal and While hafting has been a largely neglected topic transversal section. High-pressure motions, like in functional studies, the archaeological data left adzing, hoeing or chiselling, result in wear traces no doubt about the existence of hafting, at least over most of the hafted part. By contrast, moder- from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards. A more ate-pressure actions involving a kind of lever detailed study of hafting traces was urgently effect, like scraping and grooving, result in two needed. The experimental part of this research main concentrations: one around the haft limit indubitably demonstrated that distinctive, inter-

60 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

T ABLE 5. — Distinctive traits per action.

Action Trace attribute Adzing & Chiselling Scraping & Grooving Perforating & Drilling

Macroscopic Scarring intensemoderatemoderate Gloss insignificant

Microscopic Polish * intensity high moderatemoderate * patterntriangularinverted or double Tconcentration on ridge Scarring * intensity high moderatehigh * patternV-shaped inverted or double Tall edges * number of damaged high moderatehigh tool parts * morphologylarger variety insignificantinsignificant * terminationsstep & hinge most insignificantinsignificant important * size & depthlarge & deep dominatesmall & superficialsmall & superficial dominatedominate Bright spots * frequencyhigh low to moderatelow * characteristicslarge, well-developed small, moderatesmall, moderate developmentdevelopment Striations * frequencyhigh moderatemoderate * orientation parallel dominatesperpendicular (and oblique– for grooving) dominates Rounding slightly more intenselow– Overall pattern * opposition no true opposition,haft limit versus most ridges versus edges especially not on edges; proximal; especially on other parts some on edges concentration around haft limit and butt

pretable hafting wear patterns are formed. The which demonstrated that hafting extends further created experimental framework and methodol- back in time than the archaeological remains ogy allows for a distinction between hand-held allowed to assume up to now (up to 200.000 BP: and hafted tools as well as a distinction between Rots & Van Peer2006). In addition, it could be different hafting arrangements ( e.g. Rots 2002a, demonstrated that the integration of hafting 2003, 2004). An archaeological application of within functional studies has an important this methodology allowed the identification of impact on the kind of interpretations that can be hafting and hafting arrangements in several cases, obtained ( e.g. Rots 2005). Insight is possible in

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 61 Rots V.

the entire life cycle of a stone tool (Rots 2003), A NDREE J. 1932. — Beiträge zur Kenntnis des nord- which largely improves adequate interpretations deutschen Paläolithikums und Mesolithikums. Mannus-Bibl. 52: 21-36. of archaeological assemblages. The identification A RBOGAST R.-M. & P ÉTREQUIN P. 1993. — La chasse of used hafting arrangements and materials also au cerf au Néolithique dans le Jura:gestion d’une allows for an investigation of past technical population animale sauvage, in Exploitation des ani- e choices. The importance of including all kinds of maux sauvages à travers le temps, XIII rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes , trace causes in functional studies is therefore Antibes. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins: 221-232. stressed. If future functional studies need to A UDOUIN-R OUZEAU F. & B EYRIES S. (éds) 2002. — Le remain reliable and methodologically sound, a travail du cuir, de la Préhistoire à nos jours. Actes des e systematic integration of hafting wear (next to XXII Rencontres d’Antibes, oct. 2001, Antibes 2002. APDCA, Juan-les-Pins. production, use and post-depositional wear) is A VERBOUH A., B ELLIER C., B ILLAMBOZ A., essential. C ATTELAIN P., Cleyet-Merle J.-J., J ULIEN M., MonsL., R AMSEYER D., Seronie-Vivien M.-R. & W ELTE A.-C. 1995. — Fiches typologiques de l’indus- trie osseuse préhistorique 7. Éléments barbelés et appa- Acknowledgements rentés. Éditions du Cedarc, Treignes. We are indebted to the Onderzoeksfonds of the B ACKWELL L.R. & D ’E RRICO F. 2001. — Evidence of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven for their financial Termite Foraging by Swartkrans Early Hominids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98(4): support of this research. Many thanks are also 1358-1363. due to L.Pirnay, P.Pirson, O.Baudoux and B ARGE-M AHIEU H., B ELDIMAN C., B UISSON D., C.Bawin, members of the Chercheurs de la Camps-FabrerH., C HOÏ S.-Y., NandrisJ.G., Wallonie, for their indispensable help with the P ELTIER A., ProvenzanoN. & R AMSEYER D. 1993. — 3.0. F ICHES GÉNÉRALES MANCHES, in A LLAIN J. et experiments on which this research relies. al., Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhis- torique. CahierVI. Éléments récepteurs. Éditions du Cedarc, Treignes: 23-31. B ARQUINS M. 1993. — Colles naturelles et colles REFERENCES synthétiques. Pour la Science 192: 8-10. B AR-Y OSEF O. 1985. — A Cave in the Desert: Nahal A LBASINI-R OULIN P.A. 1987. — Approche ethno- Hemar 9000-year-old Finds . The Israel Museum, comparative des emmanchements de l’outillage Jerusalem. lithique néolithique de quelques stations littorales B AR-Y OSEF O. 1987. — Direct and Indirect evidence du canton de Fribourg (Suisse occ.), in for hafting in the Epi-Palaeolithic and Neolithic of S TORDEUR D. (ed.), La main et l’outil: manches et the Southern Levant, in S TORDEUR D. (éd.), La main emmanchements préhistoriques. Maison de l’Orient et l’outil: manches et emmanchements préhistoriques , Méditerranéen, Lyon : 219-228. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon, 155-164. A LLAIN J., A VERBOUH A., B ARGE-M AHIEU H., B ENECKE N. 1995. — Mensch-Tier-Beziehungen im BeldimanC., B UISSON D., Camps-F ABRER H., Jung- und Spätpaläolithikum, in U LLRICH H. (éd.), Cattelain P., C HOÏ S.-Y., NandrisJ.G., P ATOU- Man and Environment in the Palaeolithic. M ATHIS M., PeltierA., P ROVENZANO N. & ERAUL 62: 77-87. RamseyerD. 1993. — Fiches typologiques de l’indus- B EUGNIER V. 1997. — L’usage du silex dans l’acqui- trie osseuse préhistorique. CahierVI. Éléments récep- sition et le traitement des matières animales dans le teurs. Éditions du Cedarc, Treignes. Néolithique de Chalain et Clairvaux. La Motte-aux- A LLAIN J. & D ESCOUTS J. 1957. — À propos d’une Magnins et Chalain 3 (Jura, France), 3700-2980 baguette à rainure armée de silex découverte dans le av.J.-C. Thèse de Doctorat. Université de Paris X, Magdalénien de St-Marcel. L’Anthropologie 61: Paris. 503-512. B EYRIES S. 1993. — Expérimentation archéologique et A LLAIN J. & R IGAUD A. 1993. — 1. Fiches Navettes, savoir-faire traditionnel : l’exemple de la découpe in A LLAIN J. et al., Fiches typologiques de l’industrie d’un cervidé. Techniques et Cultures 22: 53-79. osseuse préhistorique. CahierVI. Éléments récepteurs. B EYRIES S. 1997. — Ethnoarchéologie : un mode d’ex- Éditions du Cedarc, Treignes: 5-14. périmentation, Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerra- A NDERSON P., P LISSON H. & R AMSEYER D. 1992. — néennes 6: 185-196. La moisson au Néolithique final: approche tracéo- B ILLAMBOZ A. 1977. — L’industrie du bois de cerf en logique d’outils en silex de Montilier et Portalban. Franche-Comté au Néolithique et au début de l’âge Archäologie der Schweiz 15 : 60-67. du Bronze. Gallia Préhistoire 20(1) : 91-176.

62 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

B INDER D., B OURGEOIS G., B ENOIST F. & V ITRY C. and spatial analysis of backed pieces at Rekem 1990. — I DENTIFICATION DE BRAI DE BOULEAU (Belgium). Journal of Field Archaeology 23(4): ( Betula ) dans le Néolithique de Giribaldi (Nice, 437-460. France) par le spectrométrie de masse. Revue de C AUVIN J. 1968. — Les outillages néolithiques de Byblos Archéométrie 14 : 37-42. et du littoral libanais. Fouilles de Byblos IV. B IRKET-S MITH K. 1929. — The Caribou Eskimos: Maisonneuve, Paris. Material and Social life and their Cultural position. C AUVIN M.-C. 1983. — Les faucilles préhistoriques Gyldeddanske Boghandel, Copenhagen. du Proche-Orient. Données morphologiques et B OCQUET A. 1984. — Les poignards néolithiques de fonctionnelles. Paléorient 9(1) : 63-80. Charavines (Isère) dans le cadre de la civilisation C AUVIN M.-C., D ERAPRAHAMIAN G. & H ELMER D. Saône-Rhône. Études préhistoriques 9: 7-17. 1987. — Grattoirs à pans coupés convergents de B OËDA E., C ONNAN J., D ESSORT D., M UHESEN S., Mureybet (Syrie) du 8 e millénaire: définition, essai M ERCIER N., V ALLADAS H. & T ISNERAT N. 1996. — de fabrication et emmanchement, in S TORDEUR D. Bitumen as a hafting material on Middle Palaolithic (éd.), La main et l’outil : manches et emmanchements artifacts. Nature 380(6572): 336-338. préhistoriques. Maison de l’Orient Mediterranéen, B OËDA E., C ONNAN J. & M UHESEN S. 1998. — Lyon : 257-268. Bitumen as hafting material on Middle Palaolithic C HARTERS S., E VERSHED R.P. & G OAD L.J. 1993. — artifacts from the El Kown Basin, Syria, in Identification of an adhesive used to repair a A KAZAWA T., A OKI K. & B AR-Y OSEF O.(eds), Roman jar. Archaeometry 35(1): 91-101. Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia. C LARK J.G.D. 1950. — Preliminary Report on the Plenum Press, New York & London: 181-204. Excavations at Star Carr, Seamer, Scarborough, B OSINSKI G. 1985. — Der Neanderthaler und seine Yorkshire (Second Season 1950). Proceedings of the Zeit . Rheinland-Verlag GmbH, Köln. Prehistoric Society 16: 109-129. B RANDT S.A. & W EEDMAN K.J.1997. — The C LARK J.G.D. 1954. — Excavations at Star Carr. AN Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working and Flaked Early Meoslithic site at Seamer, near Scarborough, Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia, in F UKUI K., Yorkshire . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K UIMOTO E. & S HIGETA M.(eds), Ethiopia in C LARKE J.D. 1936. — The Mesolithic Settlement of Broader Perspective: Papers of the XIIth International Northern Europe. A Study of the Food-Gathering Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Shokado Book peoples of Northern Europe during the Early Post- Sellers, Kyoto: 351-361. Glacial period. Greenwood Press, New York. B ROHOLM H.C. 1926-1931. — Nouvelles trouvailles C ONNAN J. 1999. — Use and Trade of Bitumen in du plus ancien âge de la pierre. Les trouvailles de Antiquity and Prehistory: Molecular Archaeology Holmgaard et de Svaerdborg, Mémoires des Anti- reveals Secrets of Past Civilizations. Philosophic quités du Nord 1. Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, C AMPS-F ABRER H. (éd.) 1982. — L’industrie en os et Biological Sciences 354(1379): 33-50. bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’âge des C ONNAN J. & D ESCHESNE O. 1991. — Le bitume Métaux. Deuxième réunion du groupe de travail dans l’Antiquité. La Recherche 229: 152-159. n° 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, in Industrie C ONNAN J. & D ESCHESNE O. 1992. — Archaeological de l’os néolithique et de l’âge des Métaux 2. Éditions bitumen: Identification, origins, and uses of an du CNRS, Paris. ancient Near Eastern material, in V ANDIVER P.B., C AMPS-F ABRER H. (éd.) 1985. — L’industrie en os et D RUZIK J.R., W HEELER G.S. & F REESTONE I.C. bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’âge des (eds), Material Issues in Art and ArchaeologyIII. Métaux. Troisième réunion du groupe de travail Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh: 683-720. n° 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, in Industrie C ONNAN J., N ISSENBAUM A. & D ESSORT D. 1995. — de l’os néolithique et de l’âge des Métaux 3. Éditions Geochemical study of Neolithic “bitumen”-coated du CNRS, Paris. objects of the Nahal Hemar Cave in the Dead Sea C AMPS-F ABRER H. & R AMSEYER D. 1993. — Area, in G RIMALT J. & D ORRONSORO C. (eds), CahierVI : Éléments récepteurs. 3.6. Fiches Organic Geochemistry: Devlopment and Applications manches en os rainurés latéralement, in A LLAIN J. et to Energy, Climate, Environment and Human His- al., Fiches typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhis- tory. AIGOA, Donostia-San Sebastion: 699-701. torique. CahierVI. Éléments récepteurs. Éditions du C OQUEUGNIOT É. 1983. — Analyse tracéologique Cedarc, Treignes. d’une série de grattoirs et herminettes de Mureybet, C AMPS-F ABRER H., C ATTELAIN P., C HOÏ S.-Y., Syrie (9e -7 e millénaires), in C AUVIN M.-C. (éd.), D AVID E., Pascual-BenitoJ.-L., P ROVENZANO N. & Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du RamseyerD. 1998. — Fiches typologiques de l’indus- Proche-Orient. Table Ronde C.N.R.S., Lyon, 8- trie osseuse préhistorique8. Biseaux et tranchants. Édi- 10juin 1982. GIS – Maison de l’Orient, Lyon. tions du Cedarc, Treignes. C URREY J.D. 1979. — Mechanical properties of bone C ASPAR J.-P. & D E B IE M. 1996. — Preparing the hunt tissues with greatly differing functions. Journal of in a Late Palaeolithic base camp. A techno-functional Biomechanics 12: 210-219.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 63 Rots V.

D ’E RRICO F. & B ACKWELL L.R. 2003. — Possible H AYEK E.W.H., K RENMAYR P., L OHNINGER H., evidence of bone tool shaping by Swartkrans early JordisU., S AUTER F. & Moche W. 1991. — GC/MS hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: and chemometrics in archaeometry. Fresenius’ 1559-1576. Journal of Analytical Chemistry 340(3): 153-156. D ’E RRICO F., B ACKWELL L.R. & B ERGER L.R. 2001a. H EDGES R.E.M., P ETTITT P.B., Bronk RamseyC. & — Bone Tool Use in Termite Foraging by Early V AN K LINKEN G.J. 1998. — Radiocarbon dates Hominids and its Impact on our Understanding of from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry Early Hominid Behaviour. South African Journal of datelist 25. Archaeometry 40: 227-239. Science 97: 71-75. H ENSHILWOOD C.S., D ’E RRICO F., M AREAN C.W., D ’E RRICO F., H ENSHILWOOD C. & N ILSSEN P. 2001b. Milo R.G. & Y ATES R. 2001. — An early bone tool — An Engraved Bone Fragment from c.70.000- industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos year-old Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave, Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of South Africa: Implications for the Origin of modern human behaviour, symbolism and lan- Symbolism and Language. Antiquity 75: 309-318. guage. Journal of Human Evolution 41(6): 631-678. D ICKSON F.P. 1981. — Australian Stone Hatchets. A H ERON C., E VERSHED R., G OAD L. & D ENHAM L. Study in Design and Dynamics . Academic Press, 1991. — New approaches to the analysis of organic Sydney; New York. residues from archaeological remains, in B UDD P. et E GLOFF M. 1987. — Emmanchements du Néolithique al. (eds), Archaeological Sciences 1989. Bradford à l’âge du Bronze dans les palafittes d’Auvernier (lac Proceedings of the conference 1989. Oxbow Mono- de Neuchâtel), in S TORDEUR D. (éd.), La main et graph 9. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 332-339. l’outil : manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. H OLDSWORTH P. 1976. — Saxon Southampton: a Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon : 229-245. New Review. Medieval Archaeology 20: 26-61. E VANS J. 1897. — The Ancient Stone Implements, J ELINEK A.J. 1982. — The Tabun Cave and Paleo- Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain. Long- lithic Man in the Levant. Science 216(4553): 1369- mans, London. [2 nd edition]. 1375. F RIIS-J OHANSEN K. 1918-1919. — Une station du J OURDAN L. & L EROY J.-P. 1987. — Des peaux de plus ancien âge de la pierre dans la Tourbière de rennes, du fil et une aiguille… Essai de reconstitution Svaerdborg. Mémoires des Antiquités du Nord 241. d’un habitat magdalénien. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. F UNKE H. 1969. — Chemisch-analystische Unter- K EELEY L.H. 1982. — Hafting and Retooling: effects suchungen verschiedener archäologische Funde. Ph.D. on the archaeological record. American Anti- diss. University of Hambourg, Hambourg. quity 47: 798-809. G IOT P.R. 1958a. — Emmanchure pour petite hache L AUWERS R. 1985. — Découverte d’un vaste campe- polie draguée dans l’estuaire de l’Odet. Bulletin de la ment du Paléolithique final dans la vallée de la Société Préhistorique Française 65: 269-271. Meuse, Belgique. L’Anthropologie 89: 557-559. G IOT P.R. 1958b. — Emmanchure avec hache polie L EROI-G OURHAN A. 1983. — Une tête de sagaie à arma- draguée dans l’estuaire du Légner (C. du N.). Bulletin ture de lamelle de silex à Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne). de la Société Préhistorique Française 65: 704-705. BulletindelaSociétéPréhistoriqueFrançaise 80:154-156. G LORY A. 1958. — Débris de corde paléolithique à la L EROI-G OURHAN A. & A LLAIN J. 1979. — Lascaux grotte de Lascaux. Mémoires de la Société Pré- inconnu . Éditions du CNRS, Paris. historique Française 5: 135-169. L YNCH T.F. 1980. — Guitarrero Cave. Early Man in G REEP S.J. 1987. — Use of Bone, Antler and Ivory in the Andes . Academic Press, New York. the Roman and Medieval Periods, in S TARLING K. M ACG REGOR A. 1985. — Bone, antler, ivory and horn: & W ATKINSON D. (eds), Archaeological Bone, Antler the technology of skeletal materials since the Roman and Ivory. Occasional Papers 5. United Kingdom period. Barnes & Noble, London. Institute for Conservation, London: 3-5. M ACG REGOR A.& C URREY J.D. 1983. — Mechanical G ROENMAN- VAN W AATERINGE W. 1992. — The properties as conditioning factors in the bone and Impact of Man on the Neolithic and Bronze Age antler industry of the 3 rd to the 13 th century AD. Landscape of the Netherlands from a general Journal of Archaeological Science 10: 71-77. methodological aspect, in F RENZEL B. (ed.), M ALLET N. 1992. — Le Grand-Pressigny. Ses relations Evaluation of Land Surfaces cleared from Forests by avec la civilisation Saône-Rhône. Suppl. au bulletin Prehistoric Man. G. Fischer, Stuttgart: 13-24. de la Société des Amis du Musée du Grand- G UILAINE J. 1976. — La Préhistoire française. II. Les Pressigny. Imp. Le Trépan, Argenton-sur-Creuse. civilisations néolithiques et protohistoriques de la M ANIA D. & C UBUK G.A. 1977. — Altpaläolithische France. CNRS, Paris. Knochenspitzen vom Typ Bilzingsleben-Hélin. H AYDEN B., F RANCO N. & S PAFFORD J. 1996. — Zeitschrift für Archäologie 11: 87-92. Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria, in M ANIA D. & T OEPFER V. 1973. — Königsaue: Glieder- O DELL G. (ed.), Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into ung, Ökologie und mittelpaläolithische Funde der Human Prehistory. Plenum Press, New York; letzten Eiszeit . Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, London: 9-45. Berlin.

64 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) Hafting and raw materials from animals

M AZZA P.P.A., M ARTINI F., S ALA B., M AGI M., R AMSEYER D. 1987. — Emmanchements de l’outillage Colombini M.P., G IACHI G., L ANDUCCI F., lithique néolithique de quelques stations littorales L EMORINI C., ModugnoF. & R IBECHINI E. 2006. — du canton de Fribourg (Suisse occ.), in A new Palaeolithic discovery: tar-hafted stone tools S TORDEUR D. (ed.), La main et l’outil: manches et in a European Mid-Pleistocene bone-bearing bed. emmanchements préhistoriques. Maison de l’Orient Journal of Archaeological Science 33(9): 1310-1318. Méditerranéen, Lyon : 211-218. M ELLAART J. 1970. — Excavations at Hacilar . R ÉGERT M. 1996. — Les composés organiques en Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Préhistoire: Nouvelles approches analytiques . Thèse M ENGHIN O. 1927. — Die mesolithische Kulturent- de doctorat. Université de Paris X, Paris. wicklung in Europa, Deutsches Archäologisches Ins- R ÉGERT M., D ELACORTE J.-M., M ENU M., titut. Romisch-Germanisches Kommizion Bericht 17: P ÉTREQUIN P. & R OLANDO C. 1998. — Identifi- 154. cation of Neolithic Hafting Adhesives from Two M ERCIER G. & S EGUIN A. 1939. — Propagation d’Est Lake Dwellings at Chalain (Jura, France). Ancient en Ouest d’une technique préhistorique. Bulletin de Biomolecules 2(1): 81-96. la Société Préhistoriques Française 37: 201-218. R ÉGERT M. & R OLANDO C. 1996. — Archéologie des M IKOV V. 1959. — The prehistoric mound at Kara- résidusorganiques:delachimieanalytiqueàl’archéo- novo. Archaeology 12: 88-97. logie, un état de question. Techne 3: 118-128. M ULLER S. 1917. — Archaeologisk Udbytte af Mose- R ICQ- DE-B OUARD M. 1996. — Pétrographie et sociétés arbeidet i Krigsaaret1917. Aarbøger 1917: 166-169. néolithiques en France méditerranéenne. L’outillage en M ULLER-B ECK H. 1965. — Seeberg-Burgäschisee-Sud. pierre polie. Monographie du CRA 16. CNRS édi- Teil 5. Holzgeräte und Holzverarbeitung. Acta tions, Paris: 61-67. Bernensia2. Verlag Stämpfli. R OTS V. 2002a. — Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: O’C ONNOR T.P. 1987. — On the Structure, Possibilities and Limitations of Macro- and Chemistry and Decay of Bone, Antler and Ivory in Microscopic Approaches . PhD thesis. Katholieke S TARLING K. & W ATKINSON D. (eds), Archaeo- Universiteit Leuven, Leuven. logical Bone, Antler and Ivory. Occasional Papers 5. R OTS V. 2002b. — Bright Spots and the Question of United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Hafting. Anthropologica et Praehistorica 113: 61-71. London: 6-8. R OTS V. 2003. — Towards an Understanding of P ÄLSI S. 1920. — Ein steinzeitlicher Moorfund. Hafting: the macro- and microscopic evidence. Finska Fornm. Fören. Tidskrift 28(2): 16. Antiquity 77(298): 805-815. P AWLIK A. 1993. — Horn Experimentation in Use- R OTS V. 2004. — Prehensile Wear on Flint Tools. Wear Analysis, in A NDERSON P. et al. (eds), Traces Lithic Technology 29(1): 7-32. et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Actes du colloque inter- R OTS V. 2005. — Wear Traces and the Interpretation national de Liège. ERAUL 50. Éditions Eraul, of Stone Tools. Journal of Field Archaeology 30(1): Liège : 211-224. 61-73. P AWLIK A. 1996. — Licht und rasterelektronen- R OTS V. & V AN P EER P. 2006. — Core-axe produc- mikroskopische Untersuchungen an geschäfteten tion and composite-tool maintenance in the Steingeräten aus Burgäschisee-Süd, in C AMPEN I., Sangoan levels at site8-B-11, Sai Island (Sudan). Hahn J. & U ERPMANN M. (eds), Spuren der Jagd. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(3): 360-371. Die Jagd nach Spuren. Tübinger Monographien zur R OTS V., P IRNAY L., P IRSON P., B AUDOUX O. & Urgeschichte 11: 331-340. V ERMEERSCH P.M. 2001. — Experimental Hafting P ÉTREQUIN P. (éd.) 1986. — Les sites littoraux néo- Traces. Identification and Characteristics. Notae lithiques de Clairvaux-les-lacs (Jura). I. Problé- Praehistoricae 21: 129-137. matique générale de la station III. Éditions de la R OTS V., P IRNAY L., P IRSON Ph. & B AUDOUX O. 2006. Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. — Blind tests shed light on possibilities of interpret- P ÉTREQUIN A.-M. & P ÉTREQUIN P. 1988. — Le ing prehistoric stone tool prehension and hafting. Néolithique des lacs. Préhistoire de lacs de Chalain et Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 935-952. de Clairvaux (4000-2000 av. J.-C.). Éditions R OTS V. & V ERMEERSCH P.M. 2004. — Experimental Errance, Paris. characterisation of microscopic hafting traces and P ÉTREQUIN P. & P ÉTREQUIN. A.-M. 1993. — Écologie its application to archaeological lithic assemblages, d’un outil : la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya in W ALKER E.A., Wenban-Smith F. & H EALY F. (Indonésie). Monographie du CRA 12. CNRS édi- (eds), Lithics in Action. Papers from the Conference tions, Paris. Lithic Studies in the Year 2000. Lithic Studies P ION G. 1987. — Andouiller de cerf travaillé pour une Society Occasional Paper8. Oxbow books, Oxford: fonction d’emmanchement de l’abri de La Fru 156-168. (Savoie), fouilles G. Pion, in S TORDEUR D. (ed.), La R OTS V. & W ILLIAMSON B. 2004. — Microwear and main et l’outil : manches et emmanchements préhis- Residue Analysis in Perspective: the contribution of toriques. Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, Lyon : ethnoarchaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeo- 151-152. logical Science 31: 1287-1299.

ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1) 65 Rots V.

S AMPSON A. 1993. — Kalogerovrysi. A Settlement of the S TORDEUR D. 1987. — Manches et emmanchements Early and Middle Bronze Age at Phylla, Euboia . préhistoriques: quelques propositions preliminar- Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, ies, in S TORDEUR D. (éd.), La main et l’outil: Athens. manches et emmanchements préhistoriques. Maison de S ARAUW G.F.L. 1903. — En Stenalders Boplads i l’Orient Mediterranéen, Lyon : 11-34. Maglemose ved Mullerup. Aarboger 1903: 148-315. S TORDEUR D. (éd.) 1987. — La main et l’outil: S CHIBLER J. 1981. — Typologische Untersuchungen manches et emmanchements préhistoriques . Maison de der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte, in Die l’Orient Mediterranéen, Lyon. neolithischen Uferseidlungen von Twann.Band 17. T INDALE N.B. 1983. — On Palaeolithic Implements Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons from Northern Tibet. Current Anthropology 24(2): Bern, herausgegeben vom Archäologischen Dienst 246-248. des Kantons Bern, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag, V AN G IJN A. 1990. — The Wear and Tear of flint. Bern. Principles of Functional Analysis applied to Dutch S CHIBLER J. 1997. — Knochen- und Geweihartefacte, Neolithic assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica in S CHIBLER J. ET AL. (eds), Ökonomie und Ökologie Leidensia22. neolithischer und bronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen am V ORUZ J.-L. 1984. — Outillage osseux et dynamisme Zürichsee. Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie industriel dans le Néolithique jurassien. Cahiers Zürich20. Fotorotar, Zürich und Egg: 122-219. d’archéologie romande 29. Bibliothèque Historique S CHMID E. 1968. — Beindrechsler, Hornschnitzer Vaudoise, Lausanne. und Leimsieder im römischen Augst, in S CHMID E., V ORUZ J.-L. 1997. — L’outillage en os et en bois de BergerL. & B ÜRGIN P. (eds), Provincialia. cerf de Chalain 3, in P ÉTREQUIN P. (éd.), Les sites Festschrift für Rudolf Laur-Belart. Schwabe, Basel: littoraux néolithiques de Clairvaux-les-lacs et de 185-197. Chalain (Jura), III, Chalain station 3, 3200-2900 S CHWARTZ M. & H OLLANDER D. 2000. — av. J.-C. Vol. 2. Éditions de la Maison des Sciences Annealing, Distilling, Reheating and Recycling: de l’Homme, Paris: 467-510. Bitumen Processing in the Ancient Near East. V ILLA P. 1991. — Middle Pleistocene prehistory in Paléorient 26(2): 83-91. southwestern Europe: the state of our knowledge S EMENOV S.A. 1964. — Prehistoric Technology. An and ignorance. Journal of Anthropological Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts Research 47: 193-217. from Traces of Manufacture and Wear . Cory, Adams V OGT E. 1949. — The birch as a source of raw mate- and Mackay, London. [Translated by M.W. rial during the stone age. Proceedings of the Thompson]. Prehistoric Society 15: 50-51. S OBOLIK K.D. 1996. — Lithic Organic Residue W INIGER J. 1985. — Das Neolithikum der Schweiz. Analysis: An Example from the Southwestern Eine Vorlesungsreihe zum Forschungsstand 1981. Archaic. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 461-469. Seminar für ur- u. frühgeschichte ältere u. natur- S OFFER O., A DOVASIO J.M., I LLINGWORTH J.S., wissenchaftliche abteilung, Basel. A MIRKHANOV H.A., P RASLOV N.D. & S TREET M. W ITTHOFT J. 1958. — Indian Methods of Skin 2000. — Palaeolithic perishables made permanent. Dressing and Tanning. Ohio Archaeologist 8(3): 94- Antiquity 74(286): 812-821. 99. S TEGUWEIT L. 2003. — Gebrauchsspuren an Artefakten W YSS R. 1973. — Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in der der Hominidenfundstelle Bilzingsleben (Thüringen). Jungsteinzeit . Monographien zur Schweiser Tübinger Arbeiten zur Urgeschichte2. Verlag . Geschichte6. Francke, Bern. . Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westfalen. Z UROWSKI K. 1974. — Zmiekczanie po. roz y i kos´ ci S TEWART H. 1984. — Cedar. Tree of Life to the North- stosowane przez wytwórcóc c staroz ytnos´ ci i we west Coast Indians . Douglas & McIntyre, Van- wczesnym sr´ edniowieczu. Acta Universitatis Nicolai couver; Toronto. Copernici, Archaeologia 4: 3-23.

Submitted on 2February 2007; accepted on 12August 2007.

66 ANTHROPOZOOLOGICA • 2008 • 43 (1)