Elsevier

Journal of Human Evolution

Volume 89, December 2015, Pages 226-263
Journal of Human Evolution

Lower Paleolithic bone tools from the ‘Spear Horizon’ at Schöningen (Germany)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.09.012Get rights and content

Abstract

The Lower Paleolithic locality of Schöningen 13 II-4 is famous for the discovery of wooden spears found amongst the butchered remains of numerous horses and other large herbivores. Although the spears have attracted the most interest, other aspects of the associated artifact assemblage have received less attention. Here we describe an extraordinary assemblage of 88 bone tools from the ‘Spear Horizon.’ This sample includes numerous long-bone shaft fragments (mostly of horse), three ribs used as ‘retouchers’ to resharpen flint tools, and a complete horse innominate that was used as an anvil in bipolar knapping. Most of the retouchers were prepared by scraping the diaphysis of fresh and dry long-bones. Technological analysis of the associated lithic assemblage demonstrates exhaustive resharpening to maintain functional cutting edges. Whereas the flint tools were brought to the site, curated, and maintained, the retouchers had a shorter use-history and were either discarded after a limited period or broken to extract marrow.

Horse and bison metapodials with flaked and rounded epiphyses are interpreted as hammers used to break marrow bones. Several of the ‘metapodial hammers’ were additionally used as knapping percussors. These constitute the earliest evidence of multi-purpose bone tools in the archeological record. Our results highlight the advanced knowledge in the use of bones as tools during the Lower Paleolithic, with major implications for understanding aspects of non-lithic technology and planning depth in early hominins.

Introduction

The use of organic knapping tools in the production of Paleolithic stone tools has been linked to the development of more sophisticated lithic technologies, as well as marking an important transformation in the cognitive abilities of early hominins (Stout et al., 2014). The main advantage of organic (‘soft’) knapping tools is that they afford the flint knapper a greater degree of control over the flaking process (either by percussion or direct pressure), thus facilitating the production of finely flaked handaxes and flaked tools. The use of organic knapping tools to make stone tools marks a major transformation in the complexity of the ‘chaîne opératoire’, which becomes particularly evident in Europe and Asia with the development of Mousterian industries (Blasco et al., 2013).

This paper reports new evidence from Schöningen 13 II-4 (Spear Horizon) for the manufacture and use of bone retouchers, predating the Mousterian and associated with a Lower Paleolithic flake industry. At least 88 complete bones and bone fragments used as percussors to retouch flint tools were found during a survey of the faunal remains from the Spear Horizon; more bone tools will undoubtedly be identified with further study.

The exceptional preservation of the faunal remains at Schöningen has resulted in an unusually detailed record of how the bones were acquired and modified for use, as well as the knapping techniques employed at the site. Percussors were used together with anvils, which were probably employed to support the smaller flint pieces during knapping. This suggests an element of bipolar knapping, an aspect of the knapping technology that was not evident from the study of the lithic tools alone. Horse and bovid metapodials with highly distinctive flaking, rounding, and polishing were also studied. The ‘metapodial hammers’ were used in an activity that evidently involved heavy-duty percussion. Flint knapping, however, can be discounted and it is possible that they were used as hammers to break open marrow bones (cf. Binford, 1978). Of exceptional interest are examples that also exhibit knapping damage on the diaphysis. This group represents the earliest example of multi-purpose bone tools yet identified in the archeological record.

Section snippets

Archeological context of the bone tools

The bone tools described in this paper come from the site of Schöningen 13 II-4 (52° 27′ N, 5° 22′ E). This is one of a series of Lower Paleolithic sites excavated by archeologists in advance of quarrying in a vast open-cast lignite mine near the town of Schöningen in northern Germany, about 170 km west of Berlin (Fig. 1; Serangeli et al., 2015a). The archeological sites are contained within a complex succession of interglacial and glacial lacustrine sediments that fill a glacially incised

Research background

Until quite recently, very few bone tools had been described from the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. During the last decade, however, excavation of new sites and the study of old collections have increasingly identified bones and teeth that have been utilized as soft hammers and retouchers to manufacture and work stone tools.

Paleolithic knapping tools made on bones (‘retouchoirs’) have been recognized since the second half of the 19th century (Dupont, 1871, Leguay, 1877, Daleau, 1883)

Identification and terminology

The identification of bone and other organic knapping tools used to manufacture and modify lithic artifacts is generally based on the recognition of characteristic percussion damage inflicted through contact of bone with the lithic material during knapping. Features produced in this way have been described extensively (e.g., Henri-Martin, 1906, Semenov, 1964, Chase, 1990, Vincent, 1993, Malerba and Giacobini, 1998, Malerba and Giacobini, 2002, Patou-Mathis, 2002, Abrams et al., 2014, Daujeard

Methods

The modifications observed on the Schöningen tools were documented and characterized both macroscopically and microscopically. The first stage in this process was to record any alteration that was visible to the naked eye and to note any features that were visible with the aid of a variable magnification binocular light microscope (BLM). During examination, the specimens were illuminated with a fiber-optic light source, changing the angle of lighting to emphasize the surface features. This was

Results

The sample of bone tools examined in detail amounts to 81 specimens representing a minimum of 48 individual bones. These are listed in Table 1 (Note that not all of the 88 specimens recognized in the survey were available for detailed study). Of the specimens studied in detail, it was possible to assign 66 specimens to taxon and anatomical element; the remainder (n = 15) are diaphysis fragments that could be assigned only to a mammal size category. A further five bone tools were figured by

Rib

Three more or less complete horse ribs display single clusters of knapping marks (Fig. 2). The marks are located near the proximal end, on the flat medial face of the blade. Knapping marks on the two left ribs (7558 and 9786, both probably 5th or 6th) are located in a similar position just below the angle. Rib 7558 has scores and pits along a length of c. 85 mm, with the densest cluster of superimposed marks located at the proximal end of the knapping area. Rib 9786 is less intensively used

Metapodial hammers

Voormolen (2008: Fig. 2.3.14) illustrated several horse metapodials with unusual flaking and percussion damage on the distal ends. Our survey of the collection identified additional specimens with a total of 14 horse metapodials and one bovid metacarpal exhibiting similar flaked and battered epiphyses (Figure 13, Figure 14, Table 16). With only one exception, the percussion damage is located on the medial and/or lateral margins of the distal condyle of horse metapodials. Similar battering

Discussion

Our analysis of the Schöningen 13 II-4 faunal assemblage has identified numerous bone tools used as flint knapping percussors and anvils, as well as a smaller group of ‘metapodial hammers’ used in heavy-duty percussion, possibly to break marrow bones. Although only a small proportion of the total assemblage has been examined in detail, the bone tool assemblage already totals 88 specimens.

Apart from its size, which is exceptional for a Lower Paleolithic site, there are a number of other aspects

Conclusion

The Paleolithic record of organic tools has long been recognized as an important measure of technological, organizational, and cognitive abilities in early hominins, despite major taphonomic biases. The bone and wooden tools from the Schöningen Spear Horizon are unique and, thus of major importance in this respect. The site is one of only a handful of Lower Paleolithic localities where organic artifacts are preserved, allowing a rare glimpse of aspects of technology and behavior that are

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank first of all Hartmut Thieme (Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege [NLD], Hannover) for initiating the Schöningen research project, as well as the excavation team: Jens Lehmann, Peter Pfarr, Wolfgang Mertens, Jörg Neumann Giesen, Neil Haycock, Wolfgang Berkemer, Martin Kursch, Dennis Mennella, and the late Klaus Köhler. Furthermore, we would like to express our gratitude to Utz Böhner (NLD, Hannover), Thomas Terberger (NLD, Hannover), and Nick Conard

References (100)

  • C. Daujeard et al.

    Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: variability and functionality

    Quatern. Int.

    (2014)
  • F. d'Errico et al.

    Identifying regional variability in Middle Stone Age bone technology: the case of Sibudu Cave

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2012)
  • M. Domínguez-Rodrigo et al.

    A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2009)
  • H.J. Greenfield

    The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing stone from metal cut-marks on bones from archeological sites

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (1999)
  • M.N. Haidle et al.

    The earliest settlement of Germany: is there anything out there?

    Quatern. Int.

    (2010)
  • C.A. Jéquier et al.

    Les retouchoirs en matières dures animales: une comparaison entre Moustérien final et Uluzzien

    C.R. Pale

    (2012)
  • J. Lang et al.

    The Middle Pleistocene tunnel Valley at Schöningen as a Paleolithic archive

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • C. Leduc

    A specialized Early Maglemosian site at Lunby Mose (Zealand, Denmark): a contribution to the understanding of Maglemosian patterns of animal resource exploitation

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2014)
  • J.-P. Mallye et al.

    The Mousterian bone retouchers of Noisetier Cave: experimentation and identification of marks

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2012)
  • M.-H. Moncel et al.

    The variability of the Middle Palaeolithic on the right bank of the Middle Rhône Valley (southeast France): technical traditions or functional choices?

    Quatern. Int.

    (2012)
  • M.-H. Moncel et al.

    Pre-Neandertal behaviour during isotopic stage 9 and the beginning of stage 8. New data concerning fauna and lithics in the different occupation levels of Orgnac 3 (Ardèche, south-east France): occupation types

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2005)
  • L. Niven et al.

    Neandertal mobility and large-game hunting: the exploitation of reindeer during the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France)

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2012)
  • S.L. Olsen

    On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archeological antler

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (1989)
  • T.R. Pickering et al.

    Taphonomy of ungulate ribs and the consumption of meat and bone by 1.2-million-year-old hominins at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2013)
  • D. Richter et al.

    The age of the Lower Palaeolithic occupation at Schöningen

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • M. Romandini et al.

    The ungulate assemblage from layer A9 at Grotta di Fiumane, Italy: a zooarcheological contribution to the reconstruction of Neanderthal ecology

    Quatern. Int.

    (2014)
  • J. Rosell et al.

    Bone as a technological raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain)

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2011)
  • J. Rosell et al.

    Recycling bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain), Bolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave (Israel)

    Quatern. Int.

    (2015)
  • V. Rots et al.

    Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artefacts from Schöningen

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • P. Saladié et al.

    Range of bone modifications by human chewing

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2013)
  • J. Serangeli et al.

    The behavioral and cultural stratigraphic contexts of the lithic assemblages from Schöningen

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • J. Serangeli et al.

    Overview and new results from large-scale excavations at Schöningen

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • J. Serangeli et al.

    The European saber-toothed cat (Homotherium latidens) found in the “Spear Horizon” at Schöningen (Germany)

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • P. Shipman et al.

    Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass processing behaviors: approaches to the fossil record

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (1983)
  • G.M. Smith

    Taphonomic resolution and hominin subsistence behaviour in the Lower Palaeolithic: differing data scales and interpretive frameworks at Boxgrove and Swanscombe (UK)

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2013)
  • M.C. Stahlschmidt et al.

    The depositional environment of Schöningen 13 II-4 and their archeological implications

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • D. Stout et al.

    Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK

    J. Archaeol. Sci.

    (2014)
  • B. Urban et al.

    Environmental reconstruction and biostratigraphy of upper Middle Pleistocene lakeshore deposits at Schöningen

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • T. Van Kolfschoten et al.

    The larger mammal fauna from the Lower Palaeolithic Schöningen Spear site and its contribution to hominin subsistence

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2015)
  • C. Verna et al.

    The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as a tool

    J. Hum. Evol.

    (2011)
  • P. Andrews

    Owls, Caves and Fossils

    (1990)
  • P. Andrews et al.

    Natural modifications to bones in a temperate setting

    Man

    (1985)
  • D. Armand et al.

    Les retouchoirs en os d'Artenac (couche 6c): perspectives archéozoologiques, taphonomique et expérimentales

  • P. Auguste

    Fiche éclats diaphysaires du Paléolithique moyen: Bianche-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais) et Kulna (Moravie, République Tchèque)

  • L.R. Backwell et al.

    The first use of bone tools: A reappraisal of the evidence from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

    Palaeont. Afr.

    (2004)
  • A.K. Behrensmeyer et al.

    Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks

    Nature

    (1986)
  • S.M. Bello et al.

    3-Dimensional microscope analysis of bone and tooth surface modifications: comparisons of fossil specimens and replicas

    Scanning

    (2011)
  • K.A. Bergsvik et al.

    Crafting bone tools in Mesolithic Norway: regional eastern-related know-how

    Euro. J. Archaeol.

    (2015)
  • L.R. Binford

    Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology

    (1978)
  • L.R. Binford

    Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths

    (1981)
  • Cited by (83)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text