Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology

8. Indirect Evidence of Hafting

8. INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF HAFTING de- centralised use-wear traces or whether the use-wear distribution differs between hand-held and hafted tools. If so, it provides an additional criterion which is useful for archaeological analysis. The exact distribution of usewear traces was not recorded for all tools, given that this variable was added later in the investigation (Table 7); the currently available toolset is thus limited (Fig. 8.1). 8.1.1 Hand-held versus hafted tools Centralised distributions proved absent on hand-held tools (Fig. 8.1). While the influence of tool use cannot be entirely ruled out, the trend appears strong and (largely) independent of tool function. In practice, it is indeed often easier to hold a tool (slightly) obliquely instead of perpendicular to the material worked. In addition, hand-held tools often proved to show an extremely de-centralised distribution with a considerable intrusion of use-wear traces more proximally (assuming a distal working edge) on one of the lateral edges. In most instances, this was the left edge (right-handed use), which corresponds to a tool which is used with its ventral face against the material being worked Some evidence may indirectly indicate hafting. Tangs and notches are probably what come to mind right away, but their link with hafting needs to be addressed in a systematic way on an archaeological level (Rots 2002c). Other wear data may however provide proven clues for hafting; the most obvious examples are the distribution of use-wear traces over the active part and fractures. 8.1 USE-WEAR TRACES If use-wear traces are used as indirect evidence of hafting, it is obviously not their morphology, but their distribution, which is important. The abrupt termination of well-developed use-wear traces is for instance a reliable argument, which is often visible macroscopically, but few materials worked cause this (e.g., cereals, earth). Here the goal is to examine whether the exact distribution of use-wear traces on the working edge differs depending on the prehensile mode and hafting arrangement: for instance, whether a certain hafting arrangement systematically results in Usewear distribution Action latero-distal lateral terminal wrapping hand-held total nr % % total nr % % total nr % % total nr % % total nr % % central chiselling 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 5 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 drilling 0 0 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 0 perforating 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 grooving 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 scraping 0 0 1 100 6 7 0 0 0 0 left grooving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 22 22 1 7 29 scraping 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 21 right grooving 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 scraping 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 mainly left adzing 7 54 92 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 67 0 0 71 chiselling 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 grooving 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 22 6 43 scraping 1 8 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 14 mainly right adzing 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 grooving 0 0 0 0 5 6 4 44 2 14 scraping 3 23 0 0 11 13 0 0 0 0 slightly left chiselling 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 5 21 0 0 11 0 0 0 grooving 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 scraping 1 8 0 0 1 1 1 11 0 0 slightly right chiselling 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 grooving 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 scraping 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 Total nr of tools 13 1 84 9 14 Figure 8.1. Use-wear distributions per prehensile mode and/or per hafting arrangement PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS 184 in a pushing direction away from the user (i.e., the dorsal face faces the user). By contrast, hafted tools frequently showed a centralised distribution next to de-centralised distributions with varying degrees of intrusion. Most schist scraping tools (exp. 13), for instance, show the considerable intrusion of use-wear evidence on one of the lateral edges. With regard to handedness (i.e., for hand-held tools), the evidence observed indicates that this issue is...