Denticulate tool
It can be difficult for archaeologists to sort and classify these tools because it is impossible for them to know if the notches were created intentionally, or if they are a result of unintentional damage.
[8] If denticulate tools are examined under a microscope and traces of use wear may suggest they were used to scrape wood,[2] for example if the edges are more polished and uniform.
[7] Usewear analysis of these tools suggests they were used for harvesting cereals, cutting grass and reeds and stripping fruits and nuts from branches.
Denticulate tools have been found at a number of notable archaeological sites around the world, include Pech de l'Aze IV and Payre in France,[5][11] the El Collado site and el Miron Cave in Spain,[6] Jiahu, Shigu and Egou in China [7] and the Tabon Caves in the Philippines.
[10] Pech de l'Azé IV is an archaeological site located in the south of France which was the home to Neanderthals during the Ice Age, 90,000-30,000 BCE.
[5] Some of the denticulate tools found at this site were made from very thin flakes and had complex notches resembling saws,[11] which were most likely used for woodworking and for the processing of meat and hides.
[15] In ancient Egypt flint denticulate tools adhered to wooden handles were used to reap grain from the 5th to 4th millennia BC.
Denticulate tools found at the Peiligang sites were made from a number of different raw materials including; tuff, sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, slate and siliceous limestone.
[7] Denticulate tools found at the Tabon Caves in the Philippines were made from red jasper, white chert and andesite.
[8] Many archaeologists use Bordes' typology when classifying lithic tools but this can prove difficult, especially “when too many questionable pieces appeared in an assemblage”.
[8] It is sometimes hard for typologists to tell whether lithic artefacts were retouched intentionally or unintentionally, for example as a result of wear over time or human trampling.
Lithic tools can provide important information on the social and economic realities of the lives of the ancient people who were using them, so archaeologists must take care when attempting to classify them.
[2] This experiment created what the archaeologists referred to as 'pseudo-tools', which resemble deliberately retouched Palaeolithic formal tools so closely that they would be classified as such.
[2] The archaeologists who carried out this study warn that, when working with denticulate tools "any typological analysis and conclusions about economic activities, social organisation, or cultural affinities must be made with caution" [2] The typology dilemma can also occur as a result of excavator bias, which impacts the way artefacts are classified and sorted and can distort the interpretation of the uncovered collection.
