Denticulate tool

Last updated
Drawing of tool with denticulate retouch Retoque denticulado.png
Drawing of tool with denticulate retouch
Denticulate tool from the Mesolithic period with a clear serrated edge Mesolithic-Neolithic flint denticulate (FindID 399525).jpg
Denticulate tool from the Mesolithic period with a clear serrated edge
Two denticulate tools with large notches Two denticulates - dorsal face (FindID 266004).jpg
Two denticulate tools with large notches

In archaeology, a denticulate tool is a stone tool containing one or more edges that are worked into multiple notched shapes (or teeth), much like the toothed edge of a saw. [1] Such tools have been used as saws for woodworking, processing meat and hides, craft activities and for agricultural purposes. Denticulate tools were used by many different groups worldwide and have been found at a number of notable archaeological sites. They can be made from a number of different lithic materials, but a large number of denticulate tools are made from flint.

Contents

Due to the nature of denticulate tools they can be difficult to classify, this leads to what is known as a 'typology dilemma'. It can be difficult for archaeologists to sort and classify these tools because it is impossible for them to know if the notches were created intentionally, or if they are a result of unintentional damage. [2] Incorrectly classifying items found at archaeological sites is problematic because it can have a significant impact on how the tools and the site are interpreted by archaeologists. [3]

These tools are included in the Mousterian tool industry by Neanderthal culture, proceeded by small hand axes and side scrapers. [4]

Uses

Denticulate tools have many different uses which can differ based on the material, size and shape of the tool. The tools can be used for woodworking, [5] processing meat and hides, [5] craft activities [6] and agricultural purposes. [7]

Woodworking

Experiments carried out by archaeologists found that using denticulate tools "seem to provide more control when working wood than a raw flake or even a scraper might", because they hold their position well on the wood because of the notches. [8] Shaped wooden artefacts have been found uncovered at sites alongside denticulate tools, suggesting these tools were used to shape these items. [8] If denticulate tools are examined under a microscope and traces of use wear may suggest they were used to scrape wood, [2] for example if the edges are more polished and uniform. [7]

Meat and hide processing

There is evidence which suggests denticulate tools were also used on softer surfaces such as meat and hides. [2] [6] Use-wear analysis carried out on denticulate tools at sites in Spain and Italy suggests that they were "employed in hide-working and butchery activities" [9] The sort of polish on the notches of a denticulate tool can also indicate it was used to scrape hides or skin. [10]

Craft activities

Evidence shows that denticulate tools were used by Palaeolithic craftsmen. [8] Some denticulate tools found in Spain have characteristics which suggest they were used for craft activities, in particular, crafts that required careful and precise action or work on small items such as needles or handles. [6]

Agriculture

Example of a 'denticulate sickle' found at Peiligang site in China Peiligang Culture Stone Sickles, Xinzheng.jpg
Example of a 'denticulate sickle' found at Peiligang site in China

Researchers in China have examined denticulate tools found at Peiligang sites which show signs they were used for agricultural purposes, these specific tools are referred to as 'denticulate sickles'. [7] Denticulate sickles are characterised by a denticulated cutting edge with grooves carved into it and a concave back opposite to grooves, one end of the tool is pointed and the other has a notch where a wooden handle may have once been connected. [7] These tools can range in size from 10–20 cm and are made from soft lithic materials. [7] Usewear analysis of these tools suggests they were used for harvesting cereals, cutting grass and reeds and stripping fruits and nuts from branches. [7] However, findings concluded that "denticulate sickles were multi-purpose tools, rather than specialised implements for harvesting cereals." [7]

There is also evidence that denticulate tools were used to carry out what is known as 'plant splitting', which involves using a tool and a specific and hand movement ("twist-of-the-wrist") to split bamboo shoots and reeds or to remove bark from trees [10] Archaeologists have also theorised that it was the process plant splitting itself that created the notches on the denticulate tools, rather intentional retouch. [10]

Distribution

Denticulate tools have a wide distribution and have been found in many places around the world, including Europe, Asia and Africa.

Notable Sites

Denticulate tools have been found at a number of notable archaeological sites around the world, include Pech de l'Aze IV and Payre in France, [5] [11] the El Collado site and el Miron Cave in Spain, [6] Jiahu, Shigu and Egou in China [7] and the Tabon Caves in the Philippines. [10]

Pech de l'Azé IV

Reconstruction of a Neanderthal skull - these are the people who would have been using the denticulate tools found at the European sites Le Moustier Neanderthal Skull reconstitution Neues Museum Berlin.jpg
Reconstruction of a Neanderthal skull - these are the people who would have been using the denticulate tools found at the European sites

Pech de l'Azé IV is an archaeological site located in the south of France which was the home to Neanderthals during the Ice Age, 90,000-30,000 BCE. [5] Over 20,000 lithic tools were found at the site during the most recent excavations, including 43 denticulate tools, [11] which for the purpose of this excavation were classified as "types which have two or more adjacent notches". [5] Some of the denticulate tools found at this site were made from very thin flakes and had complex notches resembling saws, [11] which were most likely used for woodworking and for the processing of meat and hides. [5] Francois Bordes, an archaeologist whose work focused on the typology of lithic tools, was involved in excavations at this site. [12]

Payre

Payre is site located in Southeast France, by the Rhone River and human remains excavated at the site reveal that it was home to humans of the Neanderthal lineage. [13] Researchers identified a number of stone tools at the site, which included 49 denticulates, made from either flint or quartz. [13] Researchers found that out of all the types of stone tools found at the site, the denticulate tools were made from the largest and thickest flakes. [13]

El Collado

El Collado is a Mesolithic funerary site in Spain where a number of denticulate tools were found. [6] Analysis of these tools indicates that they were used in craft activities that involved working with wood and bone. [6] The denticulate tools found at this site were mainly made from flint. [6]

el Mirón Cave

The el Mirón Cave in Spain is another site with an abundant lithic artefact assemblage, which includes denticulate tools, which are assumed to have been used as domestic tools. [14] However, denticulate tools only made up a small number of the lithic tools found at this site. [14] The lithic tools found at this site were made from local non-flint materials and non-local flint materials. [14]

Jiahu, Shigu and Egou

Jiahu, Shigu and Egou are Peiligang sites in China where denticulate tools have been found. [7] The tools range from 10–20 cm in length and were most likely used for agricultural purposes. [7] Denticulate tools found at these sites vary in shape “from a narrow body with a sharp-angled tip to a wide body with a more obtuse angled tip” [7] and most have worn down teeth, indicating heavy usage.

Tabon Caves in the Philippines, where a number of denticulate tools were found Tabon Cave 2014 04.JPG
Tabon Caves in the Philippines, where a number of denticulate tools were found

Tabon Caves

41 denticulate tools were found in the Tabon Caves in the Philippines, which are thought to have been used for ‘plant splitting’. [10] Some of tools found show evidence of intentional retouching while other denticulate tools may have been formed unintentionally. [10]

Other

Egypt

A large proportion of the denticulate tools in the Metropolitain Museum of Art's collection come from different areas in Egypt. [15] In ancient Egypt flint denticulate tools adhered to wooden handles were used to reap grain from the 5th to 4th millennia BC. [15]

England

Denticulate tools have also been found in England, in the Robin Hood Cave and in Etton, Cambridgeshire [16]

Raw Materials

A denticulate tool made from flint Denticulated flint blade from the late mesolithic or early neolithic (FindID 215990).jpg
A denticulate tool made from flint

Denticulate tools are usually made from flint, [9] [15] [11] [6] but can also be made from other materials such as limestone and quartz. [9]

The availability and quality of the raw materials used to create denticulate tools is heavily influenced by the geographic area [9] and analysis of raw materials and where they come from can provide information about the travel and trading habits of the inhabitants of the ancient sites. [9] [11]

Researchers at Pech de l'Azé IV identified denticulate tools made from different types of flint, including Coniacian flint, Campanian flint and Bergerac flint. [11] At Pech de l'Azé IV 95% of lithic tools found were made from local raw materials and a small number of tools were made from exotic raw materials such as chalcedony. [11] At Payre 47 of the denticulate tools found were made from flint and 4 were made from quartz.

Denticulate tools found at the Peiligang sites were made from a number of different raw materials including; tuff, sandstone. silstone, mudstone, slate and silicieous limestone. [7] These are softer lithic materials that allow for easier manufacture through filing and grinding. [7]

Denticulate tools found at the Tabon Caves in the Philippines were made from red jasper, white chert and andesite. [10]

The tools found at the el Mirón Cave were made from local non-flint materials and non-local flint materials. [14]

Typology Dilemma

Francois Bordes - key figure in typology of lithic tools Francois Bordes.png
Francois Bordes - key figure in typology of lithic tools

Denticulate tools have been proven to be relevant enough in the Mousterian tool industry to have been identified as a specific tool type in Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen 1961, written by French archaeologist and geologist Francois Bordes. [8] Many archaeologists use Bordes' typology when classifying lithic tools but this can prove difficult, especially “when too many questionable pieces appeared in an assemblage”. [8] Even Bordes himself found it difficult when attempting to classify denticulate tools within his typology. [8]

It is sometimes hard for typologists to tell whether lithic artefacts were retouched intentionally or unintentionally, for example as a result of wear over time or human trampling. [2] The question then becomes:

“should the term denticulates be restricted to tools intentionally retouched or encompass all tools with adjacent notches whatever the origin of the latter is?” [10]

It is important that lithic tools are accurately classified because the way these tools are sorted can impact how they are interpreted. Lithic tools can provide important information on the social and economic realities of the lives of the ancient people who were using them, so archaeologists must take care when attempting to classify them. [2]

Archaeologists have run tests to see whether the human trampling of stone flakes can damage the edges of the flakes in a way that appears to be deliberate retouch. [2] Flakes of chert and obsidian were used in the experiment, they were placed in substrate and then the archaeologists walked over the substrate and finally excavated the flakes. [2] This experiment created what the archaeologists referred to as 'pseudo-tools', which resemble deliberately retouched Palaeolithic formal tools so closely that they would be classified as such. [2] The archaeaologists who carried out this study warn that, when working with dentituculate tools "any typological analysis and conclusions about economic activities, social organisation, or cultural affinities must be made with caution" [2]

The typology dilemma can also occur as a result of excavator bias, which impacts the way artefacts are classified and sorted and can distort the interpretation of the uncovered collection. [3] Sometimes artefacts are thrown away because they are not recognised as artefacts at all, for example, an early excavator at the site of site of Combe-Capelle Bas discarded all the denticulate tools because they did not recognise them as 'valid tool types'. [3] As a result, the collection was dominated by scrapers and did not accurately reflect the range of tools used at the site. [3]

Types of Denticulate tools

Within the category of denticulate tools, there are further classifications that can be used when examining or studying the tools. Three different types have been distinguished based on the length of the notches on the cutting edge. [13] Theodoropoulou, Moncel and Navarro (2009) [13] describe the different types as follows:

The degree of modification of denticulate tools also can also be used to classify them further – with modification being considered either as small, average or invasive. [13]  

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Microlith</span> Stone tool

A microlith is a small stone tool usually made of flint or chert and typically a centimetre or so in length and half a centimetre wide. They were made by humans from around 35,000 to 3,000 years ago, across Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. The microliths were used in spear points and arrowheads.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hammerstone</span> Prehistoric stone tool

In archaeology, a hammerstone is a hard cobble used to strike off lithic flakes from a lump of tool stone during the process of lithic reduction. The hammerstone is a rather universal stone tool which appeared early in most regions of the world including Europe, India and North America. This technology was of major importance to prehistoric cultures before the age of metalworking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lithic reduction</span> Process of fashioning stones or rocks into tools and weapons

In archaeology, in particular of the Stone Age, lithic reduction is the process of fashioning stones or rocks from their natural state into tools or weapons by removing some parts. It has been intensely studied and many archaeological industries are identified almost entirely by the lithic analysis of the precise style of their tools and the chaîne opératoire of the reduction techniques they used.

A stone tool is, in the most general sense, any tool made either partially or entirely out of stone. Although stone tool-dependent societies and cultures still exist today, most stone tools are associated with prehistoric cultures that have become extinct. Archaeologists often study such prehistoric societies, and refer to the study of stone tools as lithic analysis. Ethnoarchaeology has been a valuable research field in order to further the understanding and cultural implications of stone tool use and manufacture.

In archaeology, lithic analysis is the analysis of stone tools and other chipped stone artifacts using basic scientific techniques. At its most basic level, lithic analyses involve an analysis of the artifact's Morphology (archaeology), the measurement of various physical attributes, and examining other visible features.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hand axe</span> Stone tool

A hand axe is a prehistoric stone tool with two faces that is the longest-used tool in human history. It is made from stone, usually flint or chert that has been "reduced" and shaped from a larger piece by knapping, or hitting against another stone. They are characteristic of the lower Acheulean and middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) periods, roughly 1.6 million years ago to about 100,000 years ago, and used by Homo erectus and other early humans, but rarely by Homo sapiens.

In archaeology, a uniface is a specific type of stone tool that has been flaked on one surface only. There are two general classes of uniface tools: modified flakes—and formalized tools, which display deliberate, systematic modification of the marginal edges, evidently formed for a specific purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mousterian</span> European Middle Paleolithic culture

The Mousterian is an archaeological industry of stone tools, associated primarily with the Neanderthals in Europe, and to the earliest anatomically modern humans in North Africa and West Asia. The Mousterian largely defines the latter part of the Middle Paleolithic, the middle of the West Eurasian Old Stone Age. It lasted roughly from 160,000 to 40,000 BP. If its predecessor, known as Levallois or Levallois-Mousterian, is included, the range is extended to as early as c. 300,000–200,000 BP. The main following period is the Aurignacian of Homo sapiens.

The Châtelperronian is a proposed industry of the Upper Palaeolithic, the existence of which is debated. It represents both the only Upper Palaeolithic industry made by Neanderthals and the earliest Upper Palaeolithic industry in central and southwestern France, as well as in northern Spain. It derives its name from Châtelperron, the French village closest to the type site, the cave La Grotte des Fées.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Racloir</span> Type of flint tool

In archaeology, a racloir, also known as racloirs sur talon, is a certain type of flint tool made by prehistoric peoples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Levallois technique</span> Distinctive type of stone knapping technique used by ancient humans

The Levallois technique is a name given by archaeologists to a distinctive type of stone knapping developed around 250,000 to 300,000 years ago during the Middle Palaeolithic period. It is part of the Mousterian stone tool industry, and was used by the Neanderthals in Europe and by modern humans in other regions such as the Levant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tabun Cave</span> Cave in northern Israel

The Tabun Cave is an excavated site located at Nahal Me'arot Nature Reserve, Israel and is one of the Human Evolution sites at Mount Carmel, which were proclaimed as having universal value by UNESCO in 2012.

Retouch is the act of producing scars on a stone flake after the ventral surface has been created. It can be done to the edge of an implement in order to make it into a functional tool, or to reshape a used tool. Retouch can be a strategy to reuse an existing lithic artifact and enable people to transform one tool into another tool. Depending on the form of classification that one uses, it may be argued that retouch can also be conducted on a core-tool, if such a category exists, such as a hand-axe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flake tool</span> Type of stone tool

In archaeology, a flake tool is a type of stone tool that was used during the Stone Age that was created by striking a flake from a prepared stone core. People during prehistoric times often preferred these flake tools as compared to other tools because these tools were often easily made, could be made to be extremely sharp & could easily be repaired. Flake tools could be sharpened by retouch to create scrapers or burins. These tools were either made by flaking off small particles of flint or by breaking off a large piece and using that as a tool itself. These tools were able to be made by this "chipping" away effect due to the natural characteristic of stone. Stone is able to break apart when struck near the edge. Flake tools are created through flint knapping, a process of producing stone tools using lithic reduction.

Harold Lewis Dibble was an American Paleolithic archaeologist. His main research concerned the lithic reduction during which he conducted fieldwork in France, Egypt, and Morocco. He was a professor of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania and Curator-in-Charge of the European Section of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Peter Dixon Hiscock is an Australian archaeologist. Born in Melbourne, he obtained a PhD from the University of Queensland. Between 2013 and 2021, he was the inaugural Tom Austen Brown Professor of Australian Archaeology at the University of Sydney, having previously held a position in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tautavel Man</span> Homo erectus fossil

Tautavel Man refers to the archaic humans which—from approximately 550,000 to 400,000 years ago—inhabited the Caune de l’Arago, a limestone cave in Tautavel, France. They are generally grouped as part of a long and highly variable lineage of transitional morphs which inhabited the Middle Pleistocene of Europe, and would eventually evolve into the Neanderthals. They have been variably assigned to either H. (s.?) heidelbergensis, or as a European subspecies of H. erectus as H. e. tautavelensis. The skull is reconstructed based on the specimens Arago 21 and 47, and it is, to a degree, more characteristic of what might be considered a typical H. erectus morphology than a typical H. heidelbergensis morphology. The brain capacity is 1,166 cc. They seem to have had an overall robust skeleton. Average height may have been 166 cm.

Minori Cave is part of the Callao limestone formation, located in Barangay Quibal, Municipality of Peñablanca, Cagayan Province in Northern Luzon. The said cave has two openings. One, designated as Mouth B, is located at 17° 43' 17" N latitude and 121° 49' 42" E longitude. The other opening, Mouth A is located 17° 43' 21" N latitude and 121° 49' 44" E longitude. The cave has an average elevation of about 200 m (656.2 ft) above sea level, and length and width of 147 m (482.3 ft) and 7 to 11 m, respectively. The cave is divided into four chambers with mouth A as chamber A and mouth B as chamber D. Chambers B and C are in between the two mouths.

Melkhoutboom Cave is an archaeological site dating to the Later Stone Age, located in the Zuurberg Mountains, Cape Folded Mountain Belt, in the Addo Elephant National Park, Sarah Baartman District Municipality in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pech-de-l'Azé cave</span>

The Pech-de-l'Azé caves are a prehistoric site located in the French commune of Carsac-Aillac, in the Dordogne department, in the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region of France.

References

  1. "Mousterian industry". Encyclopædia Britannica
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 McBrearty, Sally; Bishop, Laura; Plummer, Thomas; Dewar, Robert; Conard, Nicholas (January 1998). "Tools Underfoot: Human Trampling as an Agent of Lithic Artifact Edge Modification". American Antiquity. 63 (1): 108–129. doi:10.2307/2694779. ISSN   0002-7316. JSTOR   2694779. S2CID   162147301.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Dibble, Harold L.; Raczek, Teresa P.; McPherron, Shannon P. (January 2005). "Excavator Bias at the Site of Pech de l'Azé IV, France". Journal of Field Archaeology. 30 (3): 317–328. doi:10.1179/009346905791072242. ISSN   0093-4690. S2CID   129452737.
  4. Picin, Andrea; Peresani, Marco; Vaquero, Manuel (2011). "Application of a new typological approach to classifying denticulate and notched tools: The study of two Mousterian lithic assemblages". Journal of Archaeological Science. 38 (3): 711–722. Bibcode:2011JArSc..38..711P. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.025.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "The Story of Pech de l'Azé IV". www.penn.museum. Retrieved 2022-04-06.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gibaja, Juan F.; Morell, Berta; Terradas, Xavier (2017). "Approaching subsistence activities in the Mesolithic by means of lithic tools: The case of El Collado site (Oliva, Eastern Iberia)". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 18: 1026–1035. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.11.020. ISSN   2352-409X.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fullagar, Richard; Hayes, Elspeth; Chen, Xingcan; Ma, Xiaolin; Liu, Li (June 2021). "A functional study of denticulate sickles and knives, ground stone tools from the early Neolithic Peiligang culture, China". Archaeological Research in Asia. 26: 100265. doi:10.1016/j.ara.2021.100265. ISSN   2352-2267. S2CID   233543511.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arnold, Karen (1991). Experimental Archaeology and the Denticulate Mousterian. Ubiquity Press. OCLC   860043988.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Picin, Andrea; Peresani, Marco; Vaquero, Manuel (March 2011). "Application of a new typological approach to classifying denticulate and notched tools: the study of two Mousterian lithic assemblages". Journal of Archaeological Science. 38 (3): 711–722. Bibcode:2011JArSc..38..711P. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.025. ISSN   0305-4403.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Xhauflair, Hermine; Pawlik, Alfred; Jago-on, Sheldon; Vitales, Timothy; Callado, John Rey; Tandang, Danilo; Palconit, Trishia; Manipon, Dante; Gaillard, Claire; Theodoropoulou, Angeliki; Revel, Nicole (August 2020). "Plant processing experiments and use-wear analysis of Tabon Cave artefacts question the intentional character of denticulates in prehistoric Southeast Asia". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 32: 102334. Bibcode:2020JArSR..32j2334X. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102334 . ISSN   2352-409X.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The middle paleolithic site of Pech de l'Azé IV. Harold L. Dibble, Shannon J. P. McPherron, Paul Goldberg, Dennis M. Sandgathe. Cham, Switzerland. 2018. ISBN   978-3-319-57524-7. OCLC   1007823303.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
  12. Richter, D.; Dibble, H.; Goldberg, P.; McPherron, S.P.; Niven, L.; Sandgathe, D.; Talamo, S.; Turq, A. (April 2013). "The late Middle Palaeolithic in Southwest France: New TL dates for the sequence of Pech de l'Azé IV". Quaternary International. 294: 160–167. Bibcode:2013QuInt.294..160R. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.05.028. ISSN   1040-6182.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Theodoropoulou, Angeliki. Denticulates of the early middle Pleistocene lithic assemblages from Payre (south-eastern France). OCLC   825071153.
  14. 1 2 3 4 Straus, Lawrence Guy; Morales, Manuel R González (2007). "Further Radiocarbon Dates for the Upper Paleolithic of El Mirón Cave (Ramales De La Victoria, Cantabria, Spain)". Radiocarbon. 49 (3): 1205–1214. Bibcode:2007Radcb..49.1205S. doi: 10.1017/s0033822200043113 . ISSN   0033-8222.
  15. 1 2 3 "Denticulate Tool". www.metmuseum.org. Retrieved 2022-05-04.
  16. "Collections Search | British Museum". The British Museum. Retrieved 2022-05-04.

Further reading