Heritage Cases

We are applying for a permit to export a sample of worked bones (n = 65) from the Later Stone Age layers of Bushman Rock Shelter, to the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne to be studied by a Master student, Sacha Bonzom-Chapelle, together with her supervisor, Dr. Marianne Christensen, a bone tool specialist. The main motivation to export this material is the existence, in this lab, of very extensive comparative collections containing various types of experimental tools made of different animal hard products (i.e. bone, tusk, antler, and ivory). Comparison between the archaeological sample and such collections, currently unavailable in South Africa, will serve to describe use-wear patterns (what were the worked bones used for?) and identify the technological steps followed during their manufacturing (how were the bone tools made?). The study will be conducted with the aid of microscopic equipment, including optical microscope and scanning electron microscope, both available in the lab in Paris. This application concerns a sample of worked bones recovered from the site of Bushman Rock Shelter, Limpopo Province, currently housed at the Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. General presentation of the site and worked bone sample to be exported: Bushman Rock Shelter (BRS) is one of a handful of sites in Limpopo Province to contain a long, well-stratified late Pleistocene/early Holocene archaeological sequence. The site was initially excavated by Prof. Eloff from the University of Pretoria between 1967 and 1976 (Eloff, 1969) and is currently the focus of an ongoing project led by Dr. Guillaume Porraz and myself (Porraz et al., 2015). This project is twofold since it includes renewed excavations at the site as well as a reappraisal of Eloff’s archaeological collections. The basal part of the sequence contains Middle Stone Age (MSA) layers separated by a clear hiatus from the Later Stone Age (LSA) ones. The latter represent about 3 meters of highly anthropogenic sediments containing abundant archaeological remains in the form of lithic implements, pigments, well preserved animal and plant remains, terrestrial (i.e. ostrich and Achatina) shell beads, as well as perforated marine shells (Plug, 1981, 1982; Dayet et al., 2017). Besides, various types of worked bones were recovered during Eloff’s excavation (Plug, 1982); worked bones which occurrence in the deposits has been confirmed by our own field work. The majority of the LSA sequence at BRS is consistent with ‘Oakhurst’ occupations, a non microlithic techno-complex characteristic of the southern African region at the time of the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (ca. 12-7 ka BP: Lombard et al., 2012). Formal tools associated with this industry are rare and mostly represented by diverse types of large scrapers and end-scrapers, while projectiles and other obvious items of weaponry are seemingly lacking. A wide diversity of polished bone tools features prominently in the Oakhurst industry (Lombard et al., 2012). At BRS interestingly, it has been suggested that worked bones could have “compensated for the small number of formal stone tools” (Plug, 1982). Following I. Plug’s initial description (Plug, 1982), the collection of what we refer to here as ‘worked bones’ from BRS includes two main categories of animal hard product fragments, which have been transformed. The first category contains formal and finished “polished tools” (i.e. bone points, broken points, perforated and strangulated tools, bone flakes with polish, tube shaped ornaments, polished enamel and tusk fragments), while the second category includes “percussion flaked tools” (i.e. side-flaked, end-flaked, point-flaked and notched pieces, scaled pieces, burin, percussion flaking and polish). Notwithstanding the critical information provided by Plug (1982) in terms of types and dimensions of these worked bones, several key questions are still pending regarding the manufacturing steps of those worked bones as well as their function. Thus, we would like to conduct a new analysis of these worked bones following a techno-functional approach, which applies the concept of ‘chaîne opératoire’. Such an approach aims at identifying the various steps in the manufacturing process, from the acquisition of the raw material needed (in this case, animal hard products) to the making of a finished bone tool, its use and discard. This method requires to: (1) investigate technological marks left on the worked bones that document how they were made; and (2) identify traces linked to use (e.g., impact, polish or scars caused during the life of the tool). This serves to document what kind of functions those worked bones fulfilled (as projectiles or other types of weapons, butchery and hide processing tools, items of clothing, personal ornaments, etc.) and therefore the role they played in the economical system of the Oakhurst occupants of BRS. It also allows one to identify specific manufacturing patterns, possibly adapted to the type of object aimed to be produced – such patterns can be compared to those adopted in the production of other types of cultural remains (i.e. stone tools). Research questions: Specifically, by following a techno-functional approach, we aim at answering the following research questions:  Were the bone points used as projectiles? If not, what were they used for?  Is it possible to find evidence for hafting on some of the worked bones (bone points and others)?  What is the function of the perforated and strangulated bone tools (items of clothing, large needles, hide working tools, other)?  What were the flaked/knapped bones used for?  Is the complete ‘chaîne opératoire’ for the worked bones (from bone splinter extraction to discard) represented at the site?  Are there variations throughout the LSA sequence regarding worked bone types, use-wear traces and technological characteristics? The comparative experimental collections of the Université Paris 1 – Panthéon Sorbonne The research centre based at the Université de Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne, France, and led by a team of Prehistoric Ethnology specialists (UMR 7041, French CNRS) possesses a large and unique comparative collection of experimentally produced worked bones and other animal hard products such as antlers, tusks and ivory. This collection was formed as the result of numerous experimental sessions aiming at documenting macro- and microscopic traces caused either through manufacturing or use of worked bones. Hence, this collection contains abundant experimental specimens documenting specific steps of the manufacturing process for diverse categories of bone tools, as well as a wide range of use-wear traces. In the recent years, these experimental sessions focused on long bone, and more specifically ungulate metapodials, fracturing. These long bones have been transformed following different fracturing methods, such as splitting, partitioning and extraction, producing distinct types of bone splinters then used to produce bone tools. This comparative collection represents a great tool, which will allow us to gain much more in-depth understanding of the archaeological sample from BRS. To sum up The study project, for which we are applying for an export permit, is absolutely non-destructive and non-damaging for the archaeological sample. This sample will be studied in France using microscopic tools and a comparative experimental collection for a short duration (January to June 2018) and will, of course, be returned to South Africa at the end of it (mid-2018). The project cannot be completed without direct comparisons using the naked eye and microscopes between the archaeological sample and the comparative experimental material available in Paris.