4.7 Article

Early evidence of stone tool use in bone working activities at Qesem Cave, Israel

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep37686

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Israel Science Foundation
  2. CARE Archaeological Foundation
  3. Leakey Foundation
  4. Wenner-Gren Foundation
  5. Dan David foundation
  6. Thyssen Foundation
  7. Sapienza University
  8. Spanish MINECO [CGL2015-65387-C3-1-P, CGL2015-68604-P]
  9. Generalitat de Catalunya-AGAUR [2014 SGR 900, 2014/100573]
  10. SeNeCa Foundation project [19434/PI/14]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

For a long while, the controversy surrounding several bone tools coming from pre-Upper Palaeolithic contexts favoured the view of Homo sapiens as the only species of the genus Homo capable of modifying animal bones into specialised tools. However, evidence such as South African Early Stone Age modified bones, European Lower Palaeolithic flaked bone tools, along with Middle and Late Pleistocene bone retouchers, led to a re-evaluation of the conception of Homo sapiens as the exclusive manufacturer of specialised bone tools. The evidence presented herein include use wear and bone residues identified on two flint scrapers as well as a sawing mark on a fallow deer tibia, not associated with butchering activities. Dated to more than 300 kya, the evidence here presented is among the earliest related to tool-assisted bone working intended for non-dietary purposes, and contributes to the debate over the recognition of bone working as a much older behaviour than previously thought. The results of this study come from the application of a combined methodological approach, comprising use wear analysis, residue analysis, and taphonomy. This approach allowed for the retrieval of both direct and indirect evidence of tool-assisted bone working, at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Qesem Cave (Israel).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available