27 Tool types and Techniques of Upper Palaeolithic culture

D. K. Bhattacharya

Upper Palaeolithic culture marks a decrease of stone tools and an increase of bone tools. The stone tools that mark this period are usually prepared on thick blades. These blades are detached by punching technique. That is, a puncher like an antler is held against a suitable core and a hammer hits the rear end of the puncher. This technique has the advantage of managing both the direction and the magnitude of the force desired to enter the core by manipulating the puncher. The blades removed by this technique differ from those removed by fluting technique in the subsequent period. Before we set out to identify blade tools we need to define a blade first. A blade is a flake in which the length is more than or equal to twice its breadth. That is every blade is a flake but every flake is not a blade. In addition to this metric definition a blade is usually taken to have parallel borders and more or less equal thickness along its length.

 

A blade has too much sharp border. That is why most of the retouchings done in a blade is to blunt one of the borders. The technique of blunting a border is called abrupt or steep retouchings. At times it is also called truncating.

 

There are some blade tool types where in one can see retouching all along a border yet these do not blunt the border but render the sharp border sturdier like we have seen in flake retouchings. This kind of retouching is called semi- abrupt retouching. It will be not out of place to mention here that earlier idea of Aurignacian in West Europe was split into two distinct traditions called Perigordian and Aurignacian in 1933 by Dorothea Garrod only on the basis of this difference in the manner of retouching. Perigordians were characterised by abrupt retouching while Aurignacians were characterised by semi abrupt retouchings.

 

Chatelperronean knife: This is the earliest Perigordian tool type. It is defined as a blade in which one border is blunted and this meets the sharp border with a wide angle. If this backed border meets the sharp at an acute angle this type is called a Gravettian Point. It is easy to see that the Chattelperronean knife and the Gravettian point are “genetically’ related. Many Gravettian points are given a shoulder at the proximal end in the later Epi-Palaeolithic stages.

 

Retouched Blade: A classic Aurignacian tool type is a thick blade which is given semi-abrupt retouching all along the four borders. As a result these look like a slug or sliced bullets. In some cases these all around retouched blades are given a slight concavity along both the borders around the medial region. There are called “Strangled blades”.

 

End Scraper: A blade can be retouched at its terminal end in such a manner that a rounded scraping border is created. In case such retouchings are done on both the ends such specimens are called multiple End scrapers.

 

Carinated End Scraper: These are quite common during the Aurignacian period. A medium sized nodule is taken. First a small scar is removed in an oblique manner from one of the surfaces. Finally with this flat surface as platform a number of end scraper retouchings are done. These small scars converge on the hunch of the dorsal surface. Thus, carinated end scraper is basically a core tool although it is found in the Upper Palaeolithic period. Sometimes two shallow notches are prepared at the two sides of the retouched border. These specimens are called “Nosed end scraper”.

 

Burin: These are prepared on a thick blade or flake. Two facets are so removed from the anterior end of a blade that a screw driver like edge emerges. The functional edge of the screw driver is equal to the thickness of the blade. Since the working edge is prepared by two sloping scars, the generic name of all burins is dihedral angle burin. How these two sloping facets are created determines the name of the sub-type of a burin. Given below are some major sub-types of Burin.

 

Diheadral angle burin of truncation: If one of the facets of a burin is prepared by truncating or abrupt retouching such a burin is called a burin on truncation.

 

Bec-de-flute: If a blade is kept on an anvil and a tapping blow is given on the other end a corner of the blade breaks. The same process may be repeated to knock off the other corner. Thus, two facets are created which meet at an angle at the end forming the Burins edge. Since the working edge in most of this burin is chosen at the mid-rib of the blade (the thickest part of the blade) such Burins are also called “Axial burins”.

 

Basque burin: These are prepared on a thick flake and are characteristic of Aurignacian tradition of south west France. Essentially it is a burin in which one of the facets is convex and this has been shrewdly planed by creating a notch in the base of the flake. Small tapping blows which are given to form a facet are also given on this border, but because of the previously made notch at the base the force travels in a convex manner. The second facet is made in the usual manner of knocking off the other corner of the blade.

 

Noailles burin: These small Burins are prepared on horizontal truncation. It is charactristics of a late Perigordian level in south west France. A small and thick blade is taken and its terminal end is truncated. Two notches are made on the lateral borders at a medial region. Burin blows are given on the truncated border but again because of the notches in the medial region the force travels inwards. Usually other border of the two truncated ends can be used to form three other burin edges- two on each end of the blade. Since the burin blows travel inwards the finished specimen looks like a damru.

 

Parrot beak burin: This is again a burin on a thick flake. A circular flake is taken and it is truncated all along its circumference. A tapping burin blow is given on this truncated border and the resultant type looks like a parrot beak. These can also have more than one working edges. Parrot beak Burins are found in Upper Magdalenian period of France.

 

Raclette:There are thick flakes which can be circular or rectangular. Very abrupt retouchings are given all along the border. The resultant specimen looks like a caromstriker. This is also a type found during upper Magdalenian in France.

 

Audi Knife, Kostienki knife, Hamburgiean knife etc. Smaller and narrower blades have often been blunted in various shapes that has given rise to all these knife forms. Audi knife is characteristic of early Perigordian, Kostienki knife is found in the Upper Palaeolithic layers of Ukrainian and Humburgian knife is found in the Epi-Palaeolithic stages of northern flat land of Europe.

 

Laurel leaf: During middle Solutrean tradition in the Franco-Cantabrian region of south west France one finds these thin leaf points which are bifacially prepared. These are totally retouched by pressure flaking technique and hence can be differentiated from the Blattspitzen of Middle Palaeolithic period. These are some times as much as 15 cm in length, 4cm in breadth and less than 1 cm in thickness. Pressure flaking marks are visible all over the surface like ripples in the sand. This marks the zenith of stone tool technique of Palaeolithic period. These can be single as also double points, hence the name leaf points. The nick name given to them is Laurel leaf.

 

Willow leaf: During late Solutrean these leaf points become smaller in size and are now only uninfacially worked. The ventral surface remains flat and untouched. In some cases a single shoulder can also be seen. These are nick named as willow leaf.

 

Epine and Zinken: It is believed that anatomically modern Homo spiens preferred day time hunting. This resulted in the loss of body air and creation of large number of sweat pores to keep the body cool. As a consequence of this man become exposed to cool nights and winters. Animal skins must have been used to cover one self. It is because of this that one finds large number of borers during the Upper Palaeolithic period. Epine and Zinken are such fine needle borers that we might as well call them “spoke shave borers.” We have found numerous bird bones with beautiful holes made on the posterior end. Such delicate holes on thin bones can only be possible with this kind of borers. Sometimes star shaped borers where every point in the star is boring edge are also known.

 

Harpoons: Upper Palaeolithic tools include a majority of bone, ivory and antler tools. Of these the harpoons of Upper Magdalenian are worth describing. These are made out of antler by etching out rows of barbs.

 

The barbs are curved out in some and rectilinear in others. There can be only one pair of barbs in some in others two rows of symmetrical barbs. In some of these harpoons, one can see regular blood draining grooves have been prepared. These prevent the wound from getting sealed by natural clotting. The grooves make blood drain out to make the animal incapacitated and stop from running any more. Subsequently they can be killed.

 

There are numerous other bone tools of Upper Palaeolithic which are found from south west Europe. In many other parts of the world these are not so many. Neither is they known in all Upper Palaeolithic sites. South Asia is one such region which has still not yielded any bone tools in the Palaeolithic period.

REFERENCES

  • B.M. Fagan. (2004). People of Earth: An Introduction. Boston, Little, Brown & Company.
  • Felix Gadstein, Names James Ogg, Alan Smith (2004) A Geologic Time Scale. NewYork, CambridgeUniversity Press.
  • Robin Dannell. (2009). ThePalaeolithic Settlements of Asia New York, Cambridge University Press.
  • D. K. Bhattacharya. (1978). Emergence of Culture in Europe, Delhi: B.R. Publication.
  • Champion et al. (1984). Prehistoric Europe, New York: Academic Press.
  • D. K. Bhattacharya. (1996). Palaeolithic Europe. Netherlands: Humanities Press.
  • D. W. Phillipson. (2005). African Archaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
  • Bhattacharya, D.K. (1977). Palaeolithic Europe. Netherland: Humanities press.
  • Coles, J.M. and E.S. Higgs. (1969).The Archaeology of Early Man. London: Faber and Faber.
  • Burkitt, M. (1963). The Old Stone Age: A study of Palaeolithic Times. London: Bowes and Bowes.
  • Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn.(2001).Archaeology: Theories methods and Practices, London: Thames and Hudson.
  • Fagan B. M.(2004). People of the Earth: An Introduction to World Prehistory. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  • Oakley, K.P. (1966). Frameworks for dating Fossil man. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
  • The Explanation of culture change: Models in prehistory. London. Duckworth. Renfrew, C. (eds.). (1973).
  • Lee, R.B and I. Devore (Eds.). (1977).Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
  • Hole, H. and R.F. Heizer. (1969). An Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, INC.
  • Bailey, G. and P. Spikins (eds). (2008). Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University  Press.
  • Bhattacharya, D.K. (1979). Old Stone Age Tools: A Manual of Laboratory Techniques of Analysis. Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi and Company.
  • Inizan, M.L.; M. R. Ballinger; H. Roche and J. Tixier. (1999). Technology and terminology of Knapped Stone. Nanterre: CREP.
  • Oakley, K.P. (1972). Man the Tool Maker. London. Trustees of the British Museum Natural History.
  • Sankalia, H.D. (1982). Stone Age Tools: Their techniques, Names and Probable Functions. Poona: Deccan College.