Bone retouchers and technological continuity in the Middle Stone Age of North Africa

Abstract

Evidence for specialised bone tools has recently been reported for the Middle Stone Age of North Africa [one], which complements similar finds of slightly younger age in South Africa [two, three]. However, until now scant reference has been made to lesser known tools also made of bone ('bone retouchers') that were employed specifically as intermediaries for working or refining stone artefacts, that are sometimes present in these assemblages. In this paper we describe 20 bone retouchers from the cave of Grotte des Pigeons at Taforalt in northeast Morocco. This is the largest stratified assemblage of bone retouchers from a North African MSA site, and the biggest single collection so far from the African Continent. A total of 18 bone retouchers was recovered in securely dated archaeological levels spanning a period from~84.5 ka to 24 ka cal BP. A further two bone retouchers were found in a layer at the base of the deposits in association with Aterian artefacts dating to around 85,000 BP and so far represent the earliest evidence of this type of tool at Taforalt. In this paper we present a first, detailed description of the finds and trace the stages of their production, use and discard (chaîne opé ratoire). At the same time, we assess if there were diachronic changes in their form and function and, finally, explore their presence in relation to stone tools from the same occupation layers of the cave.

New data from old collections: Retouch-induced marks on Australian hardwood boomerangs

“…This study demonstrates that boomerangs curated in museum collections could possibly be associated with a new function -in this case, with retouching lithic tools -when re-examined using newly acquired or geographically removed methodologies and understandings. The relationship between stigmata appearance and lithic edge characteristics remains a poorly investigated topic (though see Alonso-García et al, 2020;Martellotta et al, 2020Martellotta et al, , 2021Ruiz et al, 2021;Turner et al, 2020), as it could be influenced by several technological and/or cultural factors. Moreover, it is problematic to associate a single retoucher to a specific type of retouched lithic tool.…”

“…Technological studies of percussion retouch have been carried out for decades in European contexts. A higher level of preservation of organic materials in this continent provides a framework for the use of bone retouchers across different regions from 500ky BP (Roberts & Parfitt, 1999) to the advent of the Metal Ages (Blasco et al, 2013;d'Errico & Henshilwood, 2007;Doyon et al, 2018;Henri-Martin, 1910;Henshilwood et al, 2001;Jéquier et al, 2018;Julien et al, 2015;Martellotta et al, 2020;Rosell et al, 2011Rosell et al, , 2018Ruiz et al, 2021;Semenov & Thompson, 1964;Tartar, 2012;Turner et al, 2020;Zhang et al, 2018; for a complete overview see Hutson et al, 2018). These studies found that bone retouchers were opportunistic tools: most retouchers being manufactured from bone shaft fragments obtained from the upper and lower limbs of large ungulates following the butchering of the animal.…”

Bone retouchers from the Mousterian Quina site of De Nadale Cave (Berici Hills, north-eastern Italy)

“…Furthermore, the role that these tools play in the understanding of human evolution and behaviour is becoming more and more established in the field. We suggest referring to some of the most valuable contributions in the study of bone retouchers, for example the volume on retouching of Hutson et al 2018, the work of Daujeard et al 2014, the more recent contributions of Alonso-Garcia et al 2020, Martellotta et al, 2020 andTurner et al 2020, and references therein. These papers, and many others, suggest and demonstrate that the study of bone retouchers is linked to different strategies in the exploitation of animal raw material, to the relationship between food waste and tool making, to a broader concept of "retouch", which goes beyond the study of retouched lithic tools by including the tools actually used for retouching.…”

Tales of Multifunctionality: a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review of Boomerangs Used as Retouchers in Australian Aboriginal Cultures

“…The proposed analysis of ethnographic evidence was carried out as a function of the technological knowledge on bone retouchers. The presence of these tools is attested in Europe, Asia, and Africa from 500 ky BP, and they started to disappear in the Upper Palaeolithic (for a synthesis, see Abrams et al, 2014;Daujeard et al, 2014;Doyon et al, 2021;Hutson et al, 2018;Martellotta et al, 2020;Martellotta et al, 2021b;Tartar, 2012;Turner et al, 2020; a complete references list on this topic is provided in Table 1 and Supplementary Information). Bone retouchers were identified among archaeological faunal assemblages between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century.…”