This is a bifacial cortical „scraper” from the MSA of Upper Egypt, made from a flat chert pebble most probably made for a hand-held use.
Bifacial Tools act as blanks for different kinds of working. The tool thus acts as a “matrix”, which requires functional technical traits for its transformative (prepared area) and prehensile parts. The active edges are arranged on this matrix according to the intended function. We know variable prehensile modes like the hand-held mode, hand-held with a wrapping, or various hafting arrangements.
For long time it was suggested that it would it impossible to detect repetitive micro traces of a hand-held use and in many studies the identifications of hand-held use were based solely on the absence of convincing evidence for hafting. Anyhow prehension wear creates an extremely recurrent pattern, as demonstrated by Rots during the last years. Compared to hafting, prehension scarring is more limited and scars are smaller and more evenly sized. (http://upers.kuleuven.be/en/book/9789058678010. ).
It is important to know, that cortical regions on a tool are areas, where no potential wear can form. Cortical regions are usually impossible to analyse by a microtraceological approach, although their prehensile qualities may be obvious, as shown by the artifact in this post or cortical scrapers from a Quina or Yabrudian context. Some researchers even see the boundary between the Acheulo-Yabrudian and the Levallois-Mousterian in the Levant as a shift from hand-held to hafted tools.
On the other hand an “intuitive” approach without microtraceology can be misleading. Keilmesser, which in our imagination would be optimal for a hand-held use were often hafted as shown from the Micoquian ( KMG) strata of the Sesselfelsgrotte (Bavaria/Germany).
Now let’s take a further step: Is there any certainty that the scraper of this post is a scraper?