25 Tool Types and Techniques of Lower Palaeolithic Culture

D. K. Bhattacharya

Though the term Lower Palaeolithic is chrono-cultural in its semantics, yet dealing with tool types requires one to over look the chronological limit. This is primarily because the term includes certain tool types, which in a worldwide context, cannot be brought together within a specific chronological bracket. Thus, we might consider two major tool traditions in Lower Palaeolithic. These are:

 

I) The pebble/ flake tradition and

II)  The Acheulian tradition

 

Some countries like East Africa and Britain consider the first tradition as ancestral to the second. In other countries like Germany, Hungry and countries lying further east pebble/ flake tradition is taken to constitute the main culture of Lower Palaeolithic. Taking the evidence from East Africa one can certainly say that pebbles/ flake tradition is the oldest evidence of human workmanship. One of the finished types of this tradition is a chopper. This type shows a large degree of internal variation. These are referred to as chopper, chopping tool side chopper etc.

 

Chopper: It is defined as a pebble in which transverse working edge is prepared by deep terminal flakings. This term is used to signify that the flake scars do not extend over the surface of the pebble. That is, majority of the surface of the pebble retains original pebble contex. A pebble with a naturally broken end is chosen. This end is used as a platform to strike a couple of blows in such a manner that a sharp straight border is created. If the working end is pointed then such a chopper can be called pointed chopper (b). If these terminal flakes are removed from both the surfaces then such a specimen is called a chopping tool or just a bifacial chopper. Since the flaking is done from both the surfaces the working border, as seem in breadth wise profiles will appear sinuous (b).This is mainly because the negative bulb of percussion of each of the scars of both the surfaces will create undulations. The actual shape of the tools as also its working borders largely depend on the shape of the pebble chosen. While choppers are plenty in Europe, Africa and Asia their structure varies a great deal. For instance the average length of choppers in the Hungarian site of Vertsszollos is only 24 mm. One can imagine that these must have been prepared more delicately than e.g., the choppers of Sohan in South Asia. Finally again because of the Hungarian evidence we need to accept that all choppers are not made on massive pebbles. Size of the pebble, as such, does not play any role in defining a chopper or chopping tool. However it is also important to note that majority of the choppers in the world are massive to medium sized pebble tools and not as diminutive as they are in Hungary.

 

Massive Flakes: These flakes usually have a pronounced positive bulb and are having a high flake angle. These have been identified as Clactonian flakes. Usually these have very little or no retouching in them. Taking a flake out of a core is not easy after one or two flakes have been taken out from the same surface because the hammer reaches its critical angle and immediately reaction of rigidity opposed the force. Consequently the core is destroyed.

 

Clactonian technique is devised in such a manner that one never reaches the critical angle until the whole core is used up. A flake is removed and for removing the second flake hammer hits on the first flake scar. For removing the third flake the hammer hits on the second flake scar, and this process can be continued untill the entire core is fruitfully utilised. Since the blow is given on an inclined plane all Clactonian flakes have a high flake angle. That is, the angle between the striking platform and the flake scar is always obtuse. There are some sites in France where typical Clactonian flakes have been found in a much smaller size. These have been named as Tayacian flakes after the name of the site. Unlike the usual Clactonian flakes Tayacian flakes are usually retouched into such types as points and side scrapers.

 

Handaxes: This is one of the types which form the definitional attribute for the Acheulian tradition. It is important to clarify certain terms used in techno-morphological considerations. One of these terms is a core tool as opposed to a flake tool. The former will be a specimen on which no positive bulb is visible, like we have seen in the choppers and chopping tools. As a consequence if a thick flake is worked all over the two surfaces and obviously the positive bulb is knocked off, such a specimen has to be classified as a core tool. Thus a handaxe is defined as a core tool. Which is worked on both the surfaces in such a manner that one end is broader and thicker than the other end. The broader end is called the proximal end or the butt end. The opposite end is called the anterior end or the working end.

 

If, however, one finds a handaxes made on a flake such specimens are required to be termed as flake handaxes. If one of the surfaces is entirely made of original core cortex, such a specimen needs to be called a proto-handaxe or an unfinished specimen. There is one specific handaxe in which the basic definition of a handaxe is contradicated. That is, it is a biface in which the thickest and broadest part of the tool is in its middle.

 

These are termed Ovate and the lateral border in profile in these specimens appears like an extended S-in shape. Ovates are usually extensively retouched all along the border and are counted as most advanced Acheulian tool type, La Micoque is an important rock shelter in Dordogne district of France. Here a specific kind of handaxes is found after a mature Mousterian layer. This late surviving tradition is called the Micoquian tradition. In many sites such as Bockstein in Germany such handaxes have been counted as defining Middle Palaeolithic. In France, however, these are counted as late surviving Acheulian tradition within Lower Palaeolithic.

 

These are 9 to 11 cm long bifaces which are extensively retouched all around the borders. The anterior end is linguaform and the lateral borders are slightly curved inside. Micoquian handaxes in Bockstein are much more in length but are as extensively retouched as in France.

 

Cleavers: Basically cleavers are defined as bifaces in which the anterior end is transverse and not pointed as in handaxe. Francois Bordes felt that since both handaxes and cleavers are bifaces, these should be counted as sub-types of a larger category which he termed as Biface. Practically speaking, however, majority of cleavers in south Asia and Africa are made on suitable flakes. Obviously these need to be called “flake cleavers”. (c) The transverse border may not always be found at right -angle to the main length axes. Such cleavers are called “cleavers with oblique bit”. In many cases the posterior end of the cleavers is specially worked as pointed end. (d) Such cleavers are called “V- cleavers” The other and usual variety may be called U- cleavers just to distinguish them from the former.

 

It is important to note two important characteristics about a cleaver. Firstly the working end is prepared by the planned intersection of two interiorly slopping flat scars, and there is hardly any retouching visible at this end. Secondly the lateral borders are extensively worked by the removal of a series of scars. Further most flake cleavers have a parallogram cross-section. Most flake cleavers in India are prepared on side flakes, i.e., the positive bulb is visible towards one of the lateral borders.

 

Discoid Core: In European typological analysis a Discoid core is counted as just one of the varieties of flake cores. In India, this is counted as a regular tool type which is more often found in association with pebble tool tradition. Basically these are medium sized circular cores which may be bi-convex or plano-convex in shape. Flakes are removed from all around the circumference in such a manner that the maximum thickness of the tool is kept at the centre. The circumference acts as the working border.

 

Levalloise Flakes: This refers to a variety of flakes which are removed by a technique called levalloise technique. Naturally such flakes are not counted as tool types until and unless they are specifically retouched into such types as side scrapers, knives, points etc., much importance is paid in archaeology on this technique. This is mainly because this demonstrates that man had conceived of the flakes first and then detached it. Thus, this is quite different from one just picking up flakes which are lying around as byproduct of core tool preparation. Here man is aiming in the production of suitable flakes alone and not shaping a core. Consequently Levalloise technique one of the first technological revolution in the chain of numerous revolutions one can see in the rise and growth of culture.

 

The technique involves shaping a core by delivering several centrally directed blows. A horizontal platform is then specially prepared at the end of the core. This is called a facetted striking platform. Subsequently a tapping blow is delivered on top of this platform in such a manner that a medium sized flake is detached. This flakes will have several flake scars on its dorsal surface which have no point of impact (truncated scars), because the points of impacts of these scars are left on the core. The flake angle of these levalloise flakes are never more than 90°. The core from which levalloise flakes are taken out are called levalloise core or tortoise core. To diagnose a flake as levalloise flake one needs to look for the following attributes.

 

I) It should have at least 2 truncated scars on its dorsal surface.

II) The flake angle should be nearly 90.

III) There should be a facetted striking platform.

 

The last two attributes can be treated as optional if one can confirm the first characteristic in a flake.

 

Levalloise point: This is an interesting adoption of the main Levalloise flaking technique. It is used to great advantage during the Middle Palaeolithic period. The technique involves the preparation of a core by giving two diagonal blows as shown. These two blows intersect on the surface to give rise to a sharp ridge running along the length of the core. Subsequently a platform is made on the end. Then a blow is given on this platform in the same manner as it is done in levalloise technique. But because of the ridge the flake that comes out is pointed at the end. More blows given in the same direction can give number of pointed flakes until the ridge is exhausted. These isosceles triangular pointed flakes can conveniently be retouched into points, lance heads or even arrow heads.

 

Lower Palaeolithic culture produces large number of flake tools as well. But these flake tools become the main tool types in the subsequent cultural period and hence these should be described as Middle Palaeolithic tool types.

 

Lower Palaeolithic has the longest duration in human cultural history. This extends beyond 1 million years. Consequently it is important to understand the progressive typo-technological changes that occur through this period. It is argued that the initial stages of handaxes which are entirely prepared by primary scars soon give rise to a regular type of handaxes. These are termed middle Acheulian types. These include three major forms. These are termed Lanceolate, Amygdaloid and Ficron. Each of these has an extended working end which project out of the main body. In Upper Acheulian these handaxes become smaller and their working end becomes a part of the body. These are called (a) Ovate (b) Cordate and (c) Triangulare.

 

Micoquian comes much later than these developments. It occurs after Middle 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 UniversityPress.
  • 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.