Investigating percussion damage on Acheulean handaxes

Frederick Foulds1 and Mark White2 Department of Archaeology, Durham University

1. Introduction
Percussion damage, realised as incipient Hertzian cones and crushing, is a rare phenomenon appearing on the faces of Acheulean handaxes. However, it is recorded at a range of sites, including Swanscombe, Caddington, Hoxne, South Woodford, and Boxgrove (Figure 1). This damage is generally interpreted as the result of battering against either stone or bone during activities such as carcass processing and knapping. Similar damage has also been attributed to signs of apprentice level knapping skill (Johansen and Stapert 2012). Here we explore some possible causes of this damage and present a new hypothesis concerning how it may have originated.

d)

b)

a)

c)

Figure 2: a) Focus of percussion on centre of the face. b) Bovid limb bone after 15 mins of percussion. c) Bovid limb bone broken across large boulder. d) Handaxe face following marrow processing attempt with absence of percussion damage.

2. Marrow processing?

Figure 1: Handaxes from Caddington (left) and South Woodford (right) showing face battering.

3. Nut cracking?
We also considered handaxe use in activities outside of butchery, despite the majority of evidence pointing to this role. Cracking nuts is one such activity that was tested (Figure 3). However, while handaxes proved more than capable at cracking nutshells, the distinctive damage seen on the archaeological samples was not reproduced and therefore cannot be attributed to this practice.

Wymer (1964) and Keeley (1992) have suggested that battering damage may result from cracking bones, probably for marrow extraction. We attempted to replicate this using replica handaxes to process bovid limb bones. The results show that handaxes have little effect and the action produced no visible damage (Figure 2). Further experimentation indicated that fractures are easier to produce when striking the bone clubwise over a large stone. We therefore see limited evidence for using handaxes as a marrow-processing tool.
Figure 4: Effects of battering handaxes and their use as hammerstones: 1)! Handaxe struck with another handaxe, producing horseshoe shaped percussion marks. 2)! Handaxe struck with quatzite pebble, producing larger rounded marks, similar to those from South Woodford. 3)! Handaxe used as percussor, resulting in crushing to artes of flake scars, similar to the example from Caddington. 4)! Damage resulting from using a handaxe as a hammer. during knapping. Marks appear was crushing, though less localised.

1)

2)

Figure 3: Processing nuts with the aid of Acheulean handaxes.

3)

4)

4. Knapping and battering stone?

Wenban-Smith (and Bridgland 2001) suggests that percussion damage may be from knapping, though Wymer (1958) considers the position of the battering to preclude this and we are inclined to agree. Also, sharp edges would make this a risky endeavour! However, we attempted to knap using handaxes as hammerstones. While we did detach flakes, the handaxes offered little control and the damage is dissimilar to the archaeology. We also tested simply banging handaxes together and against a quartzite pebble. This process recreated the damage patterns seen almost perfectly, though a number of variations are seen dependant on whether the handaxe is struck with a handaxe or a pebble, while crushing to the artes of the flake scars is seen when the handaxe is the percussor (Figure 4).

5. A new hypothesis
If battering damage is not produced via marrow and other food processing, or knapping and is simply the result of bashing handaxes together or with other stones, then what are hominins doing? Our initial conclusion is that this is possibly some form of display. As handaxes are associated with butchery, we suggest battering was used to produce noise in an effort to mediate predator/scavenger risk at kill sites. We propose that noise produced during knapping could deter predators/ scavengers. However, animals may be more inclined to interfere when knapping ceases. In the event of potential scavengers, hominins may have used the noise from battering handaxes or stones together to scare them off. Further research is needed to explore response to predator/ scavengers and noise aversion in animals and we welcome any further suggestions to the cause of this enigmatic phenomenon.
Department of Archaeology, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE

E E E

1frederick.foulds@durham.ac.uk, 2mark.white@durham.ac.uk,

! Johanson, L. and D. Stapert, 2012. Some workpieces by Middle Palaeolithic apprentice knappers, in Niekus, M.J.L.Th., Barton R.N.E., Street, M. and Th. Terberger (eds) A mind set on flint: studies in honour of Dick Stapert. Groningen Archaeological Studies 16. ! Keeley, L.H. 1992. Microwear analysis of lithics. In Singer, R. Gladfelter, B.G. and J.J. Wymer (eds) The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, England. University of Chicago Press. ! Wenban-Smith, F.F. and D. Bridgland 2001. Palaeolithic Archaeology at the Swan Valley Community School, Swanscombe, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67: 218-260. ! Wymer, J.J. 1958. Localised Battering on Handaxes. The Archaeological Newsletter 6(6): 139. ! Wymer, J.J. 1964. Excavations at Barnfield Pit, 1955-1960. In C.D. Ovey (ed.) The Swanscombe Skull: a Survey of Research on a Pleistocene Site. Occasional Paper No. 20. Royal Anthropological Institute.