This piece (see image), coming from a middle palaeolithic site, is most likely a compact (silicified?) limestone about 65 mm in length. One side is convex and seems to be a natural surface, the other side is somewhat flatter and shows a certain degree of iron staining. Most notable, and undoubtedly anthropogenic are two big removals at struck from the flatter side, removing flakes from the cortical side. Further removals can be observed on the flat side, struck from the bottom (cf. the image).
Although the piece shows various scratches across its surface going in variable directions, the top part of the cortical side show a strong concentration of (sub)parallel scratches, starting from the concave extremity up to about 1 cm onto the piece. These traces are matched by small (incidental?) removals on the reverse side.
My question is whether the scratching at the top can be considered the result of anthropogenic activity and what for what kind of activity this partly flaked, partly scrachted piece could have been used? I have considered a retoucher, and a kind of wedge/chisel like piece (the latter possibly struck from the base), but I am lacking comparative finds in the literature. Do people know of comparable finds from other sites?
Dear Eduard,
some unifacially flaked flat limestone pebbles (Weißjura, Upper Jurassic) were found in the main cultural layer (Hauptkulturschicht) of the lower travertine of Stuttgart-Untertürkheim. They were found by quarry workers between 1935 and 1937 ca. 1,5 m below the top of the last interglacial lower travertine. The layer was ochre and crumbly, it contained also artefacts made of Muschelkalk chert, Upper Jurassic chert, charcoal and animal bones (e.g. an humerus fragment of wild boar broken in fresh state). I have not noted any scratches on the pebbles, but the edges are intensely shattered. The pebbles may have been used as cores and similar to "splintered pieces". Please find attached pictures of two specimens, which are stored at the Stuttgart State Museum of Natural History:
2 (No. 33323/2): 76 mm x 90 mm x 8 mm; 165 grammes.
3 (No. 33323/6): 47 mm x 74 mm x 20 mm; 111 grammes.
Best regards,
Stefan
Book Die Funde aus dem Travertin von Stuttgart-Untertürkheim und ...
My first thought, looking at the location of the scratches and shape of the tool, is a hafted grubbing tool or pick. The scratches would be caused by grit and small pebbles being struck during forcible contact with the ground, like in digging for tubers, roots, or grubs. However, if that was the case, then there should be wear polish on the bit and scratches on the obverse of the bit.
Thanks for the answers! I guess it will be necessary to have the piece inspected under the microscope for polishes and/or signs of hafting. It is very much possible that the results will be inconclusive and big questionmarks are required to describe the piece, but that's how it is I guess which such a one-of-a-kind piece (i don't have similar specimens).
Dear Eduard,
I agree that a careful microscope inspection is required to identify the presence/absence of polish or signs of hafting. To this, I would add that you should, if possible, use experiments to see how easy it is to produce similar scratches on this type of material. For example, is the material soft enough that taphonomic processes could have produced those? If you have access to non-archaeological pieces of the same material, it may be worthwhile to experiment using them for different activities to see if any of them creates similar marks. It looks like an interesting piece, and my impression is that those scratches are due to some anthropogenic processes, but more work is obviously needed to test that assumption and see what they could have been for.
Best,
Claudine
Thanks for the feedback Claudine Gravel-Miguel! I think that a combined approach is indeed the best strategy.
Interesting piece and so are the answers but the microscope is your best tool.
ESE
I took a similarly unusually scratched piece to the Smithsonian. There, after binocular microscope session with visiting Bruce Bradley of Exeter in UK, he referred me to Emilano Melgar of INAH in Mexico City. Dr. Melgar made some impressions and looked at them under a SEM microscope. Comparing the scratch marks to a database of over 500 stone-on-stone scratch mark combinations, he was able to make a determination. It is like how forensic experts match up bullets fired from a same or similar gun. Dr. Melgar is contactable on ResearchGate, and he is very helpful. Mainly he was able to determine the most likely stone used to make the scratch, and he was also able to determine that it was of cultural origin and not some land shift, glacial, or stream/river scratches. Dr. Melgar is the world's expert on stone-on-stone abrasion, given the pre-contact MesoAmericans did not use iron to shape stones. Best to you, Lerick.
Bednarik's "The Earliest Evidence of Palaeoart" in Rock Art Research vol. 20 no.2, pp.3-28 (specifically page 7) depicts a stone "tool" with engraving lines on it, Figure 13, that is attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic. Hope that helps.
The key thing to llook for is flake scars that overlap. With very few excrptions that is the mark of human tool making.
We have found several similar artifacts from Hohle Fels cave in the Swabian Jura. One is the "Phallus" from the Gravettian which has several scratches and has been interpreted as a hammerstone. There are also a couple of limestone pieces with similar scratches and to me, they look anthropogenic as they have some diagnostic features that differ from the "Bärenschliff" (smoothed/scratched limestone from cave bears) that we also find in the cave. Not sure what the original use was though! A photo of one of these pieces in on this poster from URMU is Blaubeuren. I'm glad to read your post as I myself am curious about the similar artifacts we have at Hohle Fels!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Physiology
- Biosignals
- Biomedical Signal Processing
- Statistical Analysis