8/13/2019 Hammer Time Poster

1/1

!

Investigating percussion damage on Acheulean handaxes

Frederick Foulds1and Mark White2 Department of Archaeology, Durham University

EE

E

. Introduction

Percussion damage, realised as incipient Hertzian cones and crushing,s a rare phenomenon appearing on the faces of Acheulean handaxes.

However, it is recorded at a range of sites, including Swanscombe,

Caddington, Hoxne, South Woodford, and Boxgrove (Figure 1). This

damage is generally interpreted as the result of battering against either

tone or bone during activities such as carcass processing andknapping. Similar damage has also been attributed to signs of

apprentice level knapping skill (Johansen and Stapert 2012). Here we

explore some possible causes of this damage and present a new

hypothesis concerning how it may have originated.

1frederick.foulds@durham.ac.uk,2mark.white@durham.ac.uk, Department of Archaeology, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE

Johanson, L. and D. Stapert, 2012. Some workpieces by Middle Palaeolithic apprentice knappers, in Niekus, M.J.L.Th., Barton R.N.E., Street, M. and Th. Terberger (eds) A mind set on flint:studies in honour of Dick Stapert. Groningen Archaeological Studies 16.

Keeley, L.H. 1992. Microwear analysis of lithics. In Singer, R. Gladfelter, B.G. and J.J. Wymer (eds) The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, England. University of Chicago Press.Wenban-Smith, F.F. and D. Bridgland 2001. Palaeolithic Archaeology at the Swan Valley Community School, Swanscombe, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67: 218-260.Wymer, J.J. 1958. Localised Battering on Handaxes. The Archaeological Newsletter6(6): 139.Wymer, J.J. 1964. Excavations at Barnfield Pit, 1955-1960. In C.D. Ovey (ed.) The Swanscombe Skull: a Survey of Research on a Pleistocene Site. Occasional Paper No. 20. RoyalAnthropological Institute.

2. Marrow processing?Wymer (1964) and Keeley (1992) have suggested that battering damagemay result from cracking bones, probably for marrow extraction. We

attempted to replicate this using replica handaxes to process bovid limb

bones. The results show that handaxes have little effect and the action

produced no visible damage (Figure 2). Further experimentation

indicated that fractures are easier to produce when striking the bone club-wise over a large stone. We therefore see limited evidence for using

handaxes as a marrow-processing tool.

3. Nut cracking?We also considered handaxe use in activities outside of butchery,despite the majority of evidence pointing to this role. Cracking nuts is

one such activity that was tested (Figure 3). However, while handaxes

proved more than capable at cracking nutshells, the distinctive

damage seen on the archaeological samples was not reproduced

and therefore cannot be attributed to this practice.

igure 1: Handaxes from Caddington (left) and South Woodford (right) showing face battering.

4. Knapping and battering stone?Wenban-Smith (and Bridgland 2001) suggests that percussion damagemay be from knapping, though Wymer (1958) considers the position of

he battering to preclude this and we are inclined to agree. Also, sharp

edges would make this a risky endeavour! However, we attempted to

knap using handaxes as hammerstones. While we did detach flakes,

he handaxes offered little control and the damage is dissimilar to thearchaeology.

We also tested simply banging handaxes together and against a

quartzite pebble. This process recreated the damage patterns seen

almost perfectly, though a number of variations are seen dependant

on whether the handaxe is struck with a handaxe or a pebble, whilecrushing to the artes of the flake scars is seen when the handaxe is

he percussor (Figure 4).

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 2: a) Focus of percussion on centre of the face. b) Bovid limb bone after 15 mins

of percussion. c) Bovid limb bone broken across large boulder. d) Handaxe face followingmarrow processing attempt with absence of percussion damage.

5. A new hypothesisIf battering damage is not produced via marrow and other foodprocessing, or knapping and is simply the result of bashing handaxes

together or with other stones, then what are hominins doing? Our initial

conclusion is that this is possibly some form of display. As handaxes are

associated with butchery, we suggest battering was used to produce

noise in an effort to mediate predator/scavenger risk at kill sites. Wepropose that noise produced during knapping could deter predators/

scavengers. However, animals may be more inclined to interfere when

knapping ceases. In the event of potential scavengers, hominins may

have used the noise from battering handaxes or stones together to scare

them off. Further research is needed to explore response to predator/scavengers and noise aversion in animals and we welcome any further

suggestions to the cause of this enigmatic phenomenon.

Figure 3: Processing nuts with the aid of Acheulean handaxes.

Figure 4: Effects of battering

handaxes and their use ashammerstones:

1) Handaxe struck with anotherhandaxe, producing horseshoe

shaped percussion marks.

2) Handaxe struck with quatzitepebble, producing larger

rounded marks, similar to thosefrom South Woodford.

3) Handaxe used as percussor,resulting in crushing to artesof flake scars, similar to the

example from Caddington.4) Damage resulting from using a

handaxe as a hammer. duringknapping. Marks appear wascrushing, though less localised.

1) 2)

3) 4)