26 Tool types and techniques of Middle Palaeolithic culture

D. K. Bhattacharya

In as far as tool types go Middle Palaeolithic is characterised by an overwhelming frequency and varieties of certain tool types that appears first in Lower Palaeolithic. The most important of these types is the side scraper. Before we go to define a side scraper it is important to understand what is meant by the term retouchings. These are the half nail shaped nibbling that run contiguously along a border. It is wrongly understood as method of sharpening a flake border. Anybody knows that an unretouched flake border is most sharp then why give retouching on this. A close look at the retouched specimens will show the main purpose of retouching is to increase the angle formed by the two surfaces of the flake at its border. This makes the border sturdier and more durable than an unretouched border.

 

Side Scraper: A normal flake is fan shaped or triangular in form with the apex being the thickest part (having the positive bulb of percussion) and the base of the triangle being the thinnest part. If any border of this flake is given a contiguous retouching it forms a tool type called single side scraper. If two borders are given retouch in such a manner that they do not meet at a point this is called “Double Side Scraper”. It is important here to mention that if the length of the retouching is less than 1/3rd. length of the border then such a specimen will be simply termed as a “retouched flake” and not a side scrapers. Single side scrapers can be convex, straight or concave and a double disc scraper can be of six different types like- biconvex, biconcave, bi straight, convexo-straight, concavo-straight, and concavo-convex. The standard manner of writing this is as follows: Single side scraper convex or double side scraper convexo-concave etc.

 

One may ask at this point, how to understand whether a retouched border is straight or convex as these are never comparable to geometrical shapes. It has been suggested by Prof. Francoise Bordes that one should touch the retouched border with a pencil or a scale. If it touches the scale at one point call this a convex border. If it touches at two points call it a concave border, and finally if it touches at more than two points call it a straight border.

 

Convergent Side Scraper: These are essentially double side scrapers with the exception that here the two scarping borders meet at a point (Usually this meeting point is thickest and hence these cannot be designated as a type called “point”). Here also theoretically one can identify 6 sub-types. Prof Border has suggested that since such types are not many in number one needs to identify only three sub-types by following a rule of dominance in the following way Concave>Straight>Convex. That is if two borders of a convergent side scraper are concave & straight or concave & convex or bi-concave then such a side scraper should be simply designated as Convergent side scraper concave. In the same way if the two borders are straight and convex or bi-straight then the designation should be convergent side scraper straight.

 

Alternate side scrapers: It is essentially a double side scraper. Here one border is retouched from one surface and the other border is retouched from the opposite surface. Here again the sub-type designations are avoided because they are not very high in their frequency of occurrence. Finally if one border of a flake is retouched in such a manner that in half the length retouching is done from one surface and the retouching in the other half is visible from the opposite surface then such a type will be called Single side scraper with alternate retouching.

 

Transverse side scraper: It is a single side scraper in which the retouched border forms an anlge of 90-45 with a line that divides the bulb of percussion in equal two halves. In case the angle is less than 45 it can be called as a simple single side scraper.

 

Knives: Basically these are thick flakes where in two of its surfaces intersects to give rise to a sharp border that runs along the length axis of the flake. The opposite border is usually, the thick part. Either few steep flaking is given along this border to blunt it, or the flake chosen is such that the thicker border is made up of original cortex. In the later cases this type will be called “knives with natural backing”. This type often looks like a segment of orange. During Upper Palaeolithic we have backed knives on blades. To distinguish these flake backed knives from the Upper Palaeolithic types it is recommended that we use the French term to designate them. In French these are called Cutaux a dos.

 

Points: These are flake tools of medium size where in one can demonstrate retouchings near the pointed end. These retouching are also done additionally from the ventral surface in order to thin out or sharpen the point. Levalloise points are retouched extensively to prepare the de lux tool type called Mousterian point.

 

Borer: These are prepared on thick flakes with a projected end. This projected end is further enhanced by the creation of two notches at the base. The projected end is also given some retouchings to make it thin. There are some flakes which because of their shape do not require the making of two notches on the two borders. That is, only one notch is carved out. Such specimens are called Atypical Borer or Percoiratypic (in French). In the Middle Palaeolithic industries of India, we find many borers where the two notches on the two borders are very wide and cover the entire length of the border. Prof. H.D. Sankalia calls these as scraper-cum -borer.

 

Notches: When a small lateral incurve is deliberately etched out on a border of a flake such a specimen is designated as a type called Notch.

 

Denticulate: When two or more notches are made along one border such a type is called a denticulate. It is important to mention that both these types were not identified earlier. Prof. Bordes describes them and also identified a special group of Mousterian where in these two types occur in large number. This group was named “Mousterian of Denticulate Tradition.”

 

Blattspiz or Foliate: Flake tools are usually based on the manner in which the borders are retouched. That is to say, there are many side scrapers where the entire dorsal surface may be only pebble cortex (like in the site Tata in Hungry). While there are others in which flaking is visible on the surface of flake as well. These are usually done to obtain a slope towards the working border. There are, however, some flakes in which the entire dorsal as well as ventral surface has been carefully flaked to reduce the thickness. Such flaking must have been perfected in such a manner that the force delivered by every blow has been carefully damped and thus prevented from breaking the flake. These specimens usually measure between 5-9 cm in length, 3-4 cm in breadth and always less than 1 cm in thickness.

 

Such thin bifacial points are prepared by cylinder hammer technique only. This need to be differentiated from Solutrean leaf points such as Laurel leafs. These Upper Palaeolithic leaf points are prepared by pressure flaking technique and these occur around 19000 B.C. In contrast to these Blattspitz are prepared by percussion technique and occur anywhere in between 160,000 to 50,000 B.C. Thick blades are not entirely unknown in Middle Palaeolithic but these are usually retouched to form end scrapers.

 

Having gone through all those flake tool types which characterize Middle Palaeolithic, one would like to ask whether all these types are also known to occur in Lower Palaeolithic. The answer is yes perhaps with the exception of the Blattspitzen which appear rather late. Interestingly these appear in late Middle Palaeolithic and in certain regions continue to occur in Upper Palaeolithic culture. Thus, one can say that there is no real break that one can demonstrate between the three conventional divisions of the Palaeolithic cultural stage.

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:CambridgeUniversity 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 andCompany.
  • Inizan, M.L.; M. R. Ballinger; H. Rocheand 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.