Search

The Early Middle Paleolithic (EMP) is a less-studied phase of the Levantine Middle Paleolithic, attributable to the small number of sites discovered. Drawing on the dense archaeological accumulations at Misliya Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, the present study seeks to trace EMP daily activities and behavioral patterns through the prism of use-wear analysis. The emergence of the laminar and Levallois technologies that form the EMP toolkit is investigated to reveal other dimensions of tool novelties. Through microscopic analyses, integrated with experimentation, the most outstanding aspect revealed in this study is the extensive evidence of hafting, which included the use of binding together with various techniques for tool design. A unique treatment was identified, never reported before, entailing the abrasion of cortical surfaces and protruding dorsal ridges. Other aspects include the clear preference for pointed tools as a leading morphological trend and the use of retouch as a mean to create durable working edges and facilitate grip arrangements. The analysis demonstrates the venue of use-wear to trace a wide variety of practices, including consumption-related (processing hunted game and edible plants) and craft-related (hide processing, woodworking, and perhaps stone working) activities that otherwise hardly leave a trace in the archaeological record. By exploring these features, the research provides important insights into early hominin behavior and way of life during the EMP, emphasizing the novelties brought by the earliest Homo sapiens out of Africa.

In this paper, we present pounded objects from excavations at HWK EE and EF-HR, which are studied from macro and microscopic perspectives. Analysis of HWK EE revealed one of the largest collections of percussive objects from Olduvai Gorge, while excavations at EF-HR have allowed us to recover a much wider collection of percussive tools than previously recorded. Differences are observed between the two localities. At the Acheulean site of EF-HR, percussive tools were predominantly used in the production of flakes and large cutting tools (LCTs). At the Oldowan site of HWK EE, the tool repertoire probably related to a wider range of activities, including bone breaking and bipolar knapping. Comparison of these two assemblages, potentially produced by different hominin species, helps provide a wider picture of pounding activities during the Oldowan-Acheulean transition at Olduvai Gorge.

Although preservation of Paleolithic faunal assemblages from open-air settings is often poor, the Lower Paleolithic sites of Schoeningen provide exceptionally well-preserved mammalian faunal material for investigating hominin/animal relationships. Pleistocene fossil assemblages, however, usually reflect a complex taphonomic history in which natural and anthropogenic processes are often superimposed. A number of examples of osseous finds that resemble tools were recently discovered in the MIS 9 deposits of Schoeningen 12 II. Non-anthropogenic agents are known to produce surface modifications mimicking human artifacts and the identification of osseous remains used and/or deliberately modified by ancient hominins is often controversial in such old contexts. Multiple lines of evidence are thus useful for distinguishing between osseous artifacts and “eco-facts”.In this paper, the recognition of the use of bone for different technological purposes by late Middle Pleistocene hominins is addressed through a multi-proxy study combining geoarcheology, bone taphonomy, zooarcheology, and use-wear analysis. This allowed the identification of the processes and agents responsible for the formation and modification of the different bone assemblages of Schoeningen 12 II. Our analysis points to different types of bones having been likely used as tools. These results expandthe diversity of the organic technological repertoire of the Middle Pleistocene hominins, making Schoeningen 12 II a remarkable new source of information on osseous technology long before the Upper Paleolithic, the period traditionally viewed as the start of the systematic use of bone tools. Together with other observations of bone tools documented during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, the results from Schoeningen show that archeologists may have underestimated the diversity and importance of osseous technology among archaic hominins. Although preservation of Paleolithic faunal assemblages from open-air settings is often poor, the Lower Paleolithic sites of Schöningen provide exceptionally well-preserved mammalian faunal material for investigating hominin/animal relationships. Pleistocene fossil assemblages, however, usually reflect a complex taphonomic history in which natural and anthropogenic processes are often superimposed. A number of examples of osseous finds that resemble tools were recently discovered in the MIS 9 deposits of Schöningen 12 II. Non-anthropogenic agents are known to produce surface modifications mimicking human artifacts and the identification of osseous remains used and/or deliberately modified by ancient hominins is often controversial in such old contexts. Multiple lines of evidence are thus useful for distinguishing between osseous artifacts and "eco-facts". In this paper, the recognition of the use of bone for different technological purposes by late Middle Pleistocene hominins is addressed through a multi-proxy study combining geoarcheology, bone taphonomy, zooarcheology, and use-wear analysis. This allowed the identification of the processes and agents responsible for the formation and modification of the different bone assemblages of Schöningen 12 II. Our analysis points to different types of bones having been likely used as tools. These results expand the diversity of the organic technological repertoire of the Middle Pleistocene hominins, making Schöningen 12 II a remarkable new source of information on osseous technology long before the Upper Paleolithic, the period traditionally viewed as the start of the systematic use of bone tools. Together with other observations of bone tools documented during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, the results from Schöningen show that archeologists may have underestimated the diversity and importance of osseous technology among archaic hominins.