In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3. PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES: DREAM OR REALITY? straightforward procedure which does not demand great time investment. Seven hafted stone tools are included (exp. 1/10, 9/2, 9/3, 25/2 – 25/5), and one hand-held tool (exp. 25/1). Different use motions, materials worked and hafting arrangements are included (see Tables 1.1 and 1.2; also included in annex II). These tools are only analysed macroscopically. A second procedure involves preliminary microscopic analysis, which allows for the comparison of two sets of microscopic data (i.e., before and after use). The photographic documentation is unfortunately problematic: ideally, one should have a photograph of the same spot on the tool before and after use, but it is quite difficult to know in advance where the microscopic traces will form. Tools were thus photographed in as much detail as possible before and after hafted use. Only one tool, exp. 19/6A, is used to examine whether microscopic hafting traces form, which is of course to be expected once macroscopic traces are found. One tool is considered sufficient as abundant data are included in later chapters. 3.1.1 Macroscopic analysis Experiment 25 is used for the investigation of the formation of scarring (Table 4.1). One person used all the tools (burins) to groove hard animal matter for an approximately equal time (25 minutes). On the hand-held tool, exp. 25/1, only a few macroscopic scars were formed on the most proximal dorsal left edge (Fig. 3.1). In order to prove incontestably that prehension and hafting traces are produced and interpretable, an answer needs to be provided to a few basic questions: 1. Are prehension and hafting traces formed? 2. At what stage are hafting traces formed? 3. Can hafting wear be distinguished from wear produced by external factors? 4. Can hafting wear be distinguished from use-wear? 5. Can hafting wear be distinguished from other prehensile wear? 6. Does prehension wear have a recurring pattern? 7. Does hafting wear have a recurring pattern? Consequently: 8. Are prehension and hafting traces interpretable? 9. What is the minimal use duration to allow interpretation ? 3.1 ARE PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES FORMED? To test whether prehension and hafting traces are produced, it is sufficient to analyse the stone tool before and after it was used hand-held / hafted; when the results from the latter analysis differ from the first, the issue is proven. Two procedures are followed. In the first test, tools are drawn (not analysed) before use and it is examined whether macroscopic wear, in particular scarring, forms. It is a Figure 3.1. Exp. 25/1, hand-held burin: the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent scarring that is produced as a result of contact with the hand Figure 3.2. Exp. 25/2, burin wrapped with bindings: the transverse line represents the haft limit; the dotted scars with the line next to the edge represent the scarring that is produced as a result of hafting PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS 38 On the wrapped tool, exp. 25/2, a few small macroscopic scars were formed on the ventral medial left edge and a larger one near the ventral butt (Fig. 3.2). On the wrapped tool, exp. 25/3, some small scars were formed on the dorsal most proximal left edge and on the ventral right medial edge (Fig. 3.3; Pl. 50-51), and also one small scar on the dorsal proximal right edge. On the male split hafted tool, exp. 25/4, macroscopic scars were formed on the dorsal medial left edge, dorsal proximal right edge and on the ventral proximal right edge (Fig. 3.4; Pl. 52). On the male hafted tool, exp. 25/5, several macroscopic scars were formed (Fig. 3.5): on the dorsal left edge, at the exact haft limit (Pl. 53) and more proximal (Pl. 54), and on the ventral right edge at the exact haft limit and on a more proximal protrusion. On the ventral left edge a series of tiny scars can be distinguished, both proximal and medial (Pl. 55). This small test demonstrates that macroscopic scarring forms as a result of holding the tool during use. Macroscopic scarring proves to be more abundant on tools used in a haft in comparison to others, and only on the hafted tools does the scarring permit one to define an approximate haft limit (especially on exp. 25/5), even in the case...

Share