THE SOUNDS of FLINTKNAPPING a Thesis

Home , Auditory illusion, Tool stone

ROCK MUISC:

THE SOUNDS OF FLINTKNAPPING

A thesis submitted

To Kent State University in partial

Fulfilment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

Heather Noelle Smith

May 2020

Except for previously published materials

Thesis written by

Heather N. Smith

Bachelor of Music, Youngstown State University, 2000 M.A., Kent State University, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS------iii

LIST OF FIGURES------iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS------v

CHAPTERS

I. Introduction------1 History------1 Experimental Archaeology------3 Auditory Neuroscience------4 Sound------7 II. Methods and Materials------16 III. Results------19 IV. Discussion------24

REFERENCES------31

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Oldowan Sites in East Africa ------11

Figure 2. Cores and Whole Flakes from Gona, Ethiopia ------12

Figure 3. Auditory Pathway ------13

Figure 4. Harmonic Series of A ------14

Figure 5. Representations of Sound Waves ------14

Figure 6. Combination Tones ------15

Figure 7. Pitches of Five Stone Tool Materials ------20

Figure 8. Three Knapper Skill Levels ------21

Figure 9. Five Size Categories of Fredricksburg Chert Flakes ------21

Figure 10. Five Size Categories of Keokuk Chert Flakes ------22

Figure 11. Five Size Categories of Quartzite Flakes ------22

Figure 12. Five Size Categories of Basalt Flakes ------23

Figure 13. Five Size Categories of Obsidian Flakes ------23

Figure 14. Four Sets of Primate Audiograms ------29

Figure 15. Human Vocal Ranges and Flintknapping Sounds ------30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the many people and groups who helped to make this document and degree possible. Thank you to the GSS for the research grant award. Through their support, I was able to purchase the five stone tool materials needed to run the experiments.

Thank you to my committee and all the faculty and staff that helped to guide me in this process.

I truly appreciate your invaluable knowledge and guidance. Thank you to my lab members and the other graduate students within the Anthropology department. Your encouragement and support helped spur me on. Lastly, thank you to my family whose lives are busier, but hopefully richer, with ‘mom’ in school.

Introduction

The human lineage uniquely developed complex language, technology, and artistic expression at various points of our evolution. The Lower Paleolithic (ca. 3 million – 300,000 years ago) was a time of significant change that further differentiated us from the other primates. During this period, our brains were enlarging and reorganizing, stone tools were consistently being made, and music and language may have been developing. The emergence of, and ultimate reliance on, stone tools shaped hominid evolution and was a critical component of our culture and success. It was this first significant technology, the making of stone tools, that would have created a new auditory niche. These new tapping sounds we created became an auditory constant in our environment.

1.1. History

The environment and technology of Lower Paleolithic peoples, dated from around

3.3 to 1.8 million years ago, can be studied at archaeological sites across Africa, as seen in

Figure 1. Oldowan tools are the earliest known stone tool type and are found at sites in the

Great Rift Valley such as Gona, Hadar, and Middle Awash, Ethiopia. The sites of Koobi Fora and

West Turkana are located in Kenya, with Oduvai Gorge and Peninj in Tanzania. In South Africa,

Sterkfontein and Swartkrans are two of the major sites. Stone tool making later spread across

Eurasia with early Homo erectus. The habitats at the African sites included floodplain, fluviatile sands with volcanic ashes, lake margins, caves, grasslands, and woodlands. Oldowan tools are

1 characterized by clear, deliberate, and patterned flaking, as can be seen in Figure 2. They include simple core forms, unmodified flakes, some retouched flakes, debitage, and the hammerstones used in production. Tools were unifacial, bifacial, or polyfacial. Cores could be unidirectional, bidirectional, or multidirectional. Flakes were often very sharp and useful for cutting, chopping, or scraping a variety of resources. Evidence of tool use is seen through bone modification and microwear studies. Reports indicate that butchering, woodworking, and soft plant processing were all a part of the adaptive strategy. The materials used included basalt, chert, lavas, quartz, and quartzite (Kimbel, 1996; Toth and Schick, 2006; Anton et al., 2014;

Lemorini et al., 2014).

Although tool making may have been practiced to some degree by Australopithecines, early Homo, such as Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis, is most associated with consistent tool making in the Oldowan style, and with passing this technology down the Homo lineage

(Lovejoy, 1981). The 1470 group includes the KNM-ER 1470 cranium, 62000 partial face, and

KNM-ER 1482 and 60000 mandibles. Their range of estimated brain size may be 560 to 750 cm3

(Leakey et al., 2012). The 1813 group includes the KNM-ER 1813 and OH 24 crania, KNM-ER

1805 and OH 13 partial crania and mandible, OH 65 palate, and KNM-ER 3735 and OH 62 fragmentary crania and post-crania. Their range of estimated brain size may be 510 to 775 cm3

(Shipman and Walker, 1989; Anton et al., 2014). This smaller brain size, compared to modern

Homo sapiens, possibly processed sound differently than the larger brains we have today.

The evolution of stone tool technology may be reflective of cognitive capabilities of the human lineage. Acheulean handaxes are associated with Homo erectus and were made from

1.76 million to 2.5 thousand years ago. Handaxes are known for their symmetry around a single

2 long axis (Corbey, 2016; Lycett, 2008; Lycett et al., 2016). Some researchers feel these tools demonstrate hierarchical cognition (Stout et al., 2014; Badre and D’Esposito, 2009). The

Levallois technology was made by both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago. This entailed creating prepared cores and preferential flakes (Eren and Lycett, 2012).

Showing a hierarchical structuring of information, this technique would have made use of long- term working memory. Blade technology includes macroblades, microblades, and composite technologies. They occurred at a variety of times and places, but were prominent during the mid to upper Paleolithic transition (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999; Eren et al., 2008).

1.2. Experimental Archaeology

The production of stone tools by flintknapping is still practiced by artisans and archaeologists today. Through experimental archaeology, we are able to produce stone tools the same way our early ancestors did and study various aspects of that production. A stone replica can be defined as a “new-made object that possesses attributes relevant to better understanding prehistoric artifacts” (Eren et al., 2016). Stone-tool replication is one part in our process that includes hypothesis construction, design of test parameters, and quantitative analysis (Lycett and Chauhan, 2010). It is the sounds produced during the making of replicas that are the focus of this study. Stone tools are made by striking the material with a harder rock, or hammerstone, such as granite. The structure of these materials lends itself to conchoidal fracture, a smooth fissure showing concentric ripples. When these materials are struck with a hammerstone, a flake breaks off in a predictable way (Whittaker, 1994). The sounds may be predictable as well. The sounds produced today during flintknapping are the same sounds produced by ancient peoples.

Perception of flintknapping sounds by modern knappers has not been extensively studied, but is thought to be related to the same properties of the rocks that influence fracture mechanics (Patten, 2005). Whittaker noted that the Oxford English Dictionary associates the word ‘knap’ with “a sharp cracking sound” (Whittaker, 1994). The sounds have been described as “almost hypnotic” (Bond, 2016). Hellweg noted that when tapped lightly with a hammerstone, cobbles with a dull sound are likely to be of poor quality with cracks or fissures, and cobbles with a sharp ring are probably of good quality (Hellweg, 1984). Another author contended that a small tap on a poor-quality platform could cause the ears to ring as the rock broke (Lord, 1993). Good quality stone has been described as vibrating the whole stone with a clear tone when struck, and flaws are said to muddy the tone to sound like a thud or clack.

Students learning to knap may be instructed to listen to the sounds produced to inform their progress (Patten, 2009).

1.3. Auditory Neuroscience

The anatomically modern human first captures sound waves with the outer ear, or pinna. Sound travels through the ear canal, or meatus, and vibrates against the tympanic membrane (Vlaming and Feenstra, 1986; Stepp, 2005). Vibrations pass through the middle ear along three small bones, or ossicles, to the oval window. From there, the vibrations move through endolymph along the length of the cochlea, where the mechanical energy is converted by ciliated hair cells into electrical energy (Geisler, 1998; Lee et al., 2009; Kandel, 2013).

Electrical signals are transmitted through the auditory nerve (VIII) to the cochlear nucleus in the medulla. Tonotopically arranged, several populations of cells in the cochlear

4 nucleus code for elements of sound such as timing, amplitude, intensity, and spectrum. At least four parallel ascending pathways carry information through the superior olive, the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body, the periolivary nuclei, and the lateral lemniscus (Thompson and

Schofield, 2000). In the ventral cochlear nucleus, bushy cells project bilaterally to both the medial superior olive and the lateral superior olive with the medial nucleus of the trapezoid body (Schofield, 1995). They detect interaural time delay and interaural intensity differences respectively, and permit localization in the horizontal plane. Stellate cells encode the spectra of sounds and modulations in intensity, and octopus cells detect onset transients and periodicity in sounds (Brawer et al., 1974; Oertel et al., 2000; Kandel, 2013). The dorsal cochlear nucleus integrates somatosensory information with acoustic information from the stellate cells of the ventral cochlear nucleus (Butler and Hodos, 2005).

The medial superior olive forms a map of interaural phase that compares the timing of firing responses between the two ears. Frequencies below 4,000 Hertz are coded with phase- locking, where populations of bushy cell targets fire in phase with sound waves (Heil and

Peterson, 2016; Koppl, 1997; Rose et al., 1967). Phase ambiguities are resolved with spectral complexity by tonotopic organization in the dorsoventral dimension. These processes form a map of sound source locations. The lateral superior olive detects interaural intensity differences. In modern humans, these can be detected in frequencies greater than 2,000 Hertz through head shadowing. This performs the first of several integrative steps to using interaural intensity differences for sound location (Chase and Young, 2006; Kandel, 2013; Van Wanrooij and Van Opstal, 2004).

Most auditory pathways ascending through the brain stem converge in the inferior colliculus. In mammals, this is subdivided into the central nucleus, dorsal cortex, and external cortex. The central nucleus is tonotopically organized into critical bands of approximately two whole-steps. This frequency tuning can be sharpened by inhibition. Inhibition also suppresses reflections of sounds, a phenomenon called the precedence effect (Clifton et al., 1984; Owens and Cunningham, 2018; Tollin and Yin, 2003). Both binaural sound cues and monaural spectral cues are combined in the superior colliculus to form a spatial map congruent with maps of the visual space and body surface. The inferior colliculus sends projections to the medial geniculate body of the thalamus (Calford and Aitkin, 1983; Kandel, 2013).

The thalamus sends projections to the primary auditory cortex. The auditory pathway from the inferior colliculus through the dorsal thalamus to the neocortex is a widespread feature among vertebrates. The ventral division of the medial geniculate body is the main pathway to the primary auditory cortex. The dorsal division projects to the association auditory cortex. Projections also reach the lateral nucleus of the amygdala and the dorsal striatum

(Grimsley et al., 2013; Kandel, 2013). A diagram of basic auditory pathways can be seen in

Figure 3.

The primary auditory cortex is on Heschl’s gyrus, on the dorsal surface of the temporal lobe, and contains tonotopic representations of characteristic frequencies (Formisano et al.,

2003; Saenz and Langers, 2014). Neurons are arranged in a systematic map of low to high frequencies running rostral to caudal. Distinct subregions form clusters of cells with specific band tuning within individual iso-frequency contours. Many independent variables of sound can be represented by each neuron and location. Three to four core areas are surrounded by

6 seven to ten secondary areas and can be distinguished by their cytoarchitecture (Kandel et al.,

2013; Norman-Haignere et al., 2013; Rauschecker and Tian, 2000; Lomber and Malhotra, 2008).

Pitch processing is thought to occur in an area lateral to Heschl’s gyrus, in a region anterolateral to the primary auditory cortex (Bendor and Wang, 2006).

The average range of sound frequencies detected by the human ear is 20 to 16,000 Hz.

Behavioral audiograms show the best sensitivity to frequencies between 2,000 and 4,000 Hz.

Humans have better low frequency sensitivity than most other primates, but have poor sensitivity to higher frequencies with the lowest cutoff of any primate species. In contrast, most Old World Monkeys display a W-shaped audiogram with two sensitivity peaks around

1,000 and 8,000 Hz. Chimpanzees show reduced sensitivity around 4,000 Hz, with a cutoff around 33,000 Hz. Several other primates have higher cutoffs. Importantly, modern humans uniquely have a widened maximum sensitivity in the midrange frequencies. The region of heightened auditory sensitivity coincides with a portion of the frequency range of spoken language. The range of conversation-level human language, the “speech banana,” reaches up to around 6,000 Hz, with the majority below 2,500 Hz (Heffner, 2004; Quam et al., 2017).

1.4. Sound

Sound waves travel through the air at 340 meters/second. The frequency of these waves is measured in cycles per second, called Hertz. Slower frequencies produce lower pitches and faster frequencies higher pitches (White and White, 2014). Sound can be thought of in two categories: harmonic tones and noise. Noise is disorganized. The frequencies do not have specific relationships to each other. Harmonic tones are sound waves that are organized

7 into a pattern. The pattern that sounds naturally contain is called the harmonic series, an example of which can be seen in Figure 4. In a harmonic tone, the lowest frequency element is called the fundamental. Simply multiply this frequency by whole numbers to produce each consecutive higher-frequency element, or harmonic (Everest and Pohlmann, 2015). The first interval in this pattern is an octave, where the first harmonic is twice the frequency of the fundamental. This makes both the fundamental and the first harmonic the same letter name, or pitch. Only the intervals on a Log2 scale, such as F2, F4, F8, and F16, maintain the same pitch.

The further up the pattern, the less of the same pitch is present, and the more chaos ensues.

There are increasingly more notes between the pitch of the fundamental, and the other notes start to get very out of tune (Benward and White, 1997).

The majority of sounds that we hear are not pure tones, but complex mixtures. The various blends are referred to as tone color or timbre and help us identify different sounds.

Tone color is shown by waveform, and refers to multiple frequencies added together. The wave of a pure tone looks like a sine curve, and the wave of a complex tone can be many shapes, as can be seen in Figure 5. Because of this variation, we are able to distinguish the same frequency being played by different instruments or the same words being spoken by different people (Benward and White, 1997; Allen et al., 2017; White and White, 2014). We are able to recognize the voices of our colleagues, friends, and family.

Flintknappers may have worked at the same time, causing more than one sound to be heard. When two sounds are present, extra sounds, called combination tones, are generated by waves along the basilar membrane, which is graded by ionic, electrical, and mechanical characteristics. When octaves and perfect fifths, the two most important intervals in the

8 harmonic series, are heard, three combination tones line up exactly in tune, as can be seen in

Figure 6 (Smoorenburg, 1970; Smoorenburg et al., 1972; Robles et al., 1991; Goldstein, 1995;

Eguiluz et al., 2000). Three sounds are represented by the equations f2 – f1, 2f1 – f2, and 3f1 –

2f2. These distortion products are perceived as lower than the sounded tones and can be thought of as the brain’s way of identifying fifths and octaves because they line up in precisely at these two intervals.

This process could provide some biological basis for the concepts of consonance and dissonance in music, what we hear as stable or as creating movement. The preference for these intervals or the association of them with positive or negative connotations is culturally learned (Stevens, 2012). Some cultures view these intervals as more pleasant while others do not or may even have a taboo against them (McDermott et al., 2016). Whatever the aesthetic association, these two intervals, octaves and perfect fifths, are the foundation for most world musics today. Octaves and fifths are considered the most stable intervals in music (Bidelman &

Krishnan, 2009). They feature prominently in many Native North American songs, are present in folk music of the Chinese countryside, and are important in the classical music of India.

Octaves and fifths give structure to Pan-Islamic folk music, and in western music, they form the mathematical rules for how a melody is shaped and how chords progress (Densmore, 1929a;

Densmore, 1929b; Fenton and Kurath, 1952; Malm, 1967; Grout and Palisca, 1996).

Through experimental archaeology, reproducing the sounds of flintknapping opens a window into the soundscape of our ancestors. This allows us to hear and study the auditory environment of ancient hominins and to ask questions about how this may have influenced our evolution of language, music, and auditory perception. The actions of tapping and striking used

9 to craft stone tools could be said to produce noise with a musical quality. This study aimed to describe the sounds of flintknapping from a musical perspective and then integrate that information with our knowledge of human evolution and auditory perception. How could listening to these sounds for 3 million years affect our evolution? We attempted to tease apart this broader question with three specific hypotheses. First, we investigated the relationship of sound to technology by analyzing the sonic differences between material types and between knapper skill levels. Next, we predicted that the sounds will be a part of the harmonic series and that through the reductive process, as the nodule or flakes get smaller, the pitch will get higher, like most other natural materials. Lastly, we tested the hypothesis that flintknapping frequencies relate to human language by examining the similarity of the range of frequencies to that of conversational speech.

Figure 1. Map of Oldowan sites. (Toth and Schick, 2006).

Figure 2. Cores and whole flakes from Gona. (Toth and Schick, 2006).

Figure 3. Auditory Pathway. (Kandel, 2013).

Figure 4. Harmonic Series beginning with A at 27.5 Hertz.

Figure 5. Representations of sound waves in particles, a pure tone, and complex waves. (White and White, 2014).

Figure 6. Three combination tones underneath two sounded tones. (White and White, 2014).

Methods and Materials

These data were obtained in the Experimental Archaeology Laboratory at Kent State

University. The rooms were not specialized for sound dampening. They had drop ceilings, painted dry-wall, and tile flooring covered with hard rubber tiles in the area of flintknapping.

The rooms contain shelving, materials, and various tools and machines, though none of them resonated enough to cause notice or acoustical distraction. Only team members participating in the study were present at the time of data collection.

Musical dictation was performed by Heather Smith, with Alyssa Perrone confirming the pitches. A violin, made by Robert Gordon, was used to assist in pitch identification. Both Smith and Perrone have intense musical training. Perrone plays the viola and studied music since the age of 10. Through high school, she was involved in both school and summer programs, as well as private studio instruction. Besides earning a Bachelor’s degree in Archaeology, Perrone completed most of a degree in music. Smith worked as a professional violinist for over 20 years and began her formal music education at the age of 7. Having a Bachelor of Music in Violin

Performance, Smith has worked for several professional orchestras and has taught music both as an adjunct professor and as private teacher in her own studio. As a performing artist, Smith has arranged, coached, and performed music for a wide variety of ensembles.

Three flint-knappers were used in this study. The novice had minimal knapping practice, and the intermediate knapper had about five years of experience. The expert knapper had over

20 years of knapping experience and apprenticed with several master knappers. All knappers were instructed to remove flakes in an Oldowan style. A single knapper was seated on a chair with a nodule and two specific hammerstones to choose between. Heather Smith sat within 6 feet of the knapper with a violin, matching the pitch with the violin and naming the frequencies for each strike of the hammerstone. Alyssa Perrone sat within the same radius and entered the data, as Hertz, pitch, and octave, in a spread sheet. This distance was far enough to avoid dense dust and any small, flying debris, yet close enough to hear accurately. Flakes were numbered and placed in a tray for each nodule.

Two material types, Fredricksburg Chert and Keokuk Chert, were used to test flintknapper skill level. Fifteen nodules of each material were separated into three groups of five each. The groups in each material were made as similar as possible. Each core was measured by weight, maximum length, width at 25%, 50%, and 75%, and thickness at 25%,

50%, and 75%. Each nodule was knapped to exhaustion. All flakes were measured by weight, maximum length, median width, and central thickness.

Three more material types were also used to determine differences in material type: obsidian, basalt, and quartzite. These were knapped only by the expert. There were five nodules of each material, and twelve flakes were removed from each core for a total of sixty per material type. Again, all flakes were measured by weight, maximum length, median width, and central thickness. Again, frequency, pitch, and octave were recorded for each hammer strike.

To determine differences among the five material types, chi square tests were run on two variables: pitch and octaves present. To show differences among skill levels, a chi square test was run on both materials only on octaves present, because the pitch was the same among levels. To determine differences among flake sizes, qui square tests were run on each of the five material types. The flakes from each material were separately organized into five equal categories, with the pitch compared to size.

Both stone tool materials and skill levels are nominal data. Pitch is also nominal, but octaves are ordinal. Octaves are arranged in order from lowest to highest and include differences in number of frequencies contained, since they are based on a Log2 scale, and in how they are processed by the auditory system, such as in phase locking and head shadowing.

Frequency, measured in Hertz, is continuous data. In this study, it was used to show range in descriptive data, but not in statistical testing. We felt it was less clear in analyzing differences in the real categories of pitch and octave, which were the emphasis of this study.

RESULTS

The pitches heard during flint-knapping are shown in Figure 7. Only the pitches of E and G were present in up to three octaves. This confirms that the pitches are part of the harmonic series.

Surprisingly, the nodules each maintained the same pitch throughout the entire reduction sequence.

Pitch did not increase as the material became smaller. The range of the frequencies was from 330 –

1568 Hz. This falls within the range for human conversational speech at around 200 – 6,000 Hz.

There was a significant difference in the pitch produced by the different material types (ꭓ2 = 394, p <

.0001; Figure 7). Quartzite and Obsidian produced G’s and Basalt, Keokuk Chert, and Fredricksburg

Chert produced E’s. There was also a significant effect of material on the octaves present (ꭓ2 = 51.75, p

< .001; Figure 7). Quartzite and Fredricksburg Chert both produced sounds in the 4th and 5th octaves.

Basalt, Keokuk Chert, and Obsidian produced sounds in the 4th, 5th, and 6th octaves.

Differences among skill level (novice, intermediate, and expert) were tested on two material types, Fredricksburg Chert and Keokuk Chert. Both materials showed significant differences between skill levels (Fredricksburg ꭓ2 = 6.8, p = .0455, Cramer’s V = .1158; Figure 8), (Keokuk ꭓ2 = 22.26, p = .0002,

Cramer’s V = .1467; Figure 8).

Differences between sounds produced and maximum length of flake were tested on each of the five material types. Chi square tests showed no significant differences between size of flake and sounds produced during striking (Fredricksburg ꭓ2= 12.9, p = .1152; Figure 9), (Keokuk ꭓ2= 9.919, p > .20; Figure

10), (Quartzite ꭓ2= 12.205, p > .199; Figure 11), (Basalt ꭓ2 = 32.54, p > .20; Figure 12), (Obsidian ꭓ2 =

24.83, p > .09; Figure 13). For each material type, the full range of maximum lengths were divided into

19 five equal categories. The y-axis in the graphs represents the number of flakes, and the x-axis represents the five size categories.

Tool Stone Material 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Quartzite Obsidian Basalt Keokuk Fred G4 G5 G6 E4 E5 E6

Figure 7. Pitches of each tool stone material. G4 = 392 Hz, G5 = 784 Hz, G6 = 1568 Hz, E4 = 440 Hz, E5 = 880 Hz, E6= 1760 Hz. Y- axis represents percentage of hammerstone strikes.

Fredricksburg Keokuk 100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0% Expert Intermed Novice Expert Intermed Novice E4 E5 E4 E5 E6

Figure 8. Three skill levels of expert, intermediate, and novice on two tool stone materials.

Fredricksburg 25

0 1 2 3 4 5

E4 E5 E4E5

Figure 9. Five categories of Fredricksburg Chert flakes by maximum length and octaves present. Size 1 = 34-56mm. Size 2 = 57-

79mm. Size 3 = 80-102mm. Size 4 = 103-125mm. Size 5 = 126-147mm. ꭓ2 = 12.9, p = .1152, and n = 129.

Keokuk 16

0 1 2 3 4 5

E4 E5 E4E5 E5E6

Figure 10. Five categories of Keokuk Chert flakes by maximum length and octaves present. Size 1 = 40-67mm. Size 2 = 68-

95mm. Size 3 = 96-124mm. Size 4 = 125-153mm. Size 5 = 154-181mm. ꭓ2 = 9.919, p > .20, n = 85.

Quartzite 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5

G4 G5 G4G5

Figure 11. Five categories of Quartzite flakes by maximum length and octaves present. Size 1 = 25-43mm. Size 2 = 44-62mm.

Size 3 = 63-81mm. Size 4 = 82-100mm. Size 5 = 101-118mm. ꭓ2 = 12.205, p > .199, n = 60.

Basalt 14

0 1 2 3 4 5

E4 E5 E4E5 E5E6

Figure 12. Five categories of Basalt flakes by maximum length and octaves present. Size 1 = 47-61mm. Size 2 = 62-76mm. Size

3 = 77-92mm. Size 4 = 93-107mm. Size 5 = 108-121mm. ꭓ2 = 32.54, p > .20, n = 60.

Obsidian 12

0 1 2 3 4 5

G4 G5 G4G5 G5G6 G4G5G6

Figure 13. Five categories of Obsidian flakes by maximum length and octaves present. Size 1 = 46-59mm. Size 2 = 60-73mm.

Size 3 = 74-87mm. Size 4 = 88-101mm. Size 5 = 102-115mm. ꭓ2 = 24.83, p > .09, n = 60.

Discussion

Oldowan technology presented a new auditory environment for ancient Homo, one that undoubtedly played a major role in shaping our biocultural evolution. This study aimed to characterize the sounds produced during Oldowan tool production. Five stone material types were chosen to represent common materials found world-wide in ancient technologies. Three flintknappers participated in this study, working a total of forty-five nodules. We predicted that tool stone sounds would be part of the harmonic series and would be higher for smaller pieces, and we predicted there would be differences between material types and skill levels.

Without exception, each individual nodule maintained the same pitch throughout the reduction sequence. This is unusual compared to most other natural materials, which sound increasingly higher as they get smaller. These steady pitches would have created a very consistent sound environment for all ancient peoples. Ancient Homo had small brains and likely no language or music. As the major evolutionary response of our lineage, it is thought that most ancient people participated in flintknapping. Anyone within the nearby vicinity would have been exposed to these sounds on a regular basis, from in utero to death. While

Oldowan technology lasted from 3.3 to 1.8 million years ago, various flintknapping technologies were ubiquitous until the development of metals, and some have lasted up until the present day. For significant evolutionary change to occur, a stable environment is needed for a lengthy time to allow natural selection to work in a given direction. Flintknapping provided a consistent

24 sound environment for a very long time where natural selection may have affected our technological behavior, speech range, or auditory processing.

The five stone material types in this study each displayed a single fundamental pitch with some accompanying harmonics. Two pitches were found in this study, E and G. Some rocks had one additional harmonic, while others had two. This tells us that different material types can have different sounds. This was important for people migrating to a new location or for sites where multiple tool stone materials were present. A new material may have sounded different and been a new variable for flintknappers to adjust to. Using multiple materials at the same site may have created a cohesive sound or a variety of pitches, depending on materials present.

Three flintknappers of dissimilar skill level displayed significantly different proportions of sounds produced during the reduction process. This study only looked at pitch and not rhythm, tempo, or any other sound characteristics. Yet pitch alone shows that individual differences can exist between various knappers. Lacking a general trend in the data, this finding may not be an indicator of skill level, but simply a demonstration of individuality.

Flintknapping sounds have a musical quality and can be rhythmical. This makes stone tool technology an excellent candidate for being a major influence on early music. Ancient music is, in most ways, unknowable. Ethnographically documented music may reflect a continuous tradition from early times, but is unable to be dated due to lack of written notation.

Chinese musical instruments including bronze bells and Qing stones are known from the Shang

Dynasty (1600-1046 BC), but we are unsure of their sound (Jin, 2011). European music can be

25 traced back to ancient Greece, though what comes before is unknown (Grout & Palisca, 1996;

McKinnon, 1990). In both North and South America, among other places, archaeologists have uncovered conch shells blown as trumpets, music that we cannot accurately replicate (Loose,

2012; Montagu, 1981). Through experimental archaeology, flintknapping shows us what ancient peoples were listening to. They had short pitches within the harmonic series that may have been organized rhythmically. These could have been produced individually or in a group setting. Tool-making sounds may have become embedded in developing cultures, functioning as the first music or influencing the first musical expressions.

Octaves in the harmonic series, that were observed in this study, are the most salient feature of all world musics today. They are enhanced by combination tones formed in the inner ear which provide the biological basis for the concepts of consonance and dissonance.

Musically, combination tones are very useful. As a professional violinist, I used these combination tones every day for tuning my instrument and also for staying in tune while playing. I taught my many students to do the same. Speculatively, in ancient times, harmonic tones, or organized sounds, may have come to be associated with cultural items or behavior, such as human voices or flintknapping. Non-harmonic tones, or noise, may have been associated with non-cultural items and processes including environmental noises such as the wind blowing through grasses.

The most surprising finding of this study was the tuning of the pitches produced during flintknapping. The rocks are perfectly tuned to modern practice. Every orchestra, band, and singing group in Western culture tunes to A440, with few exceptions. Instruments are made within certain parameters to be able to be tuned to this pitch, thereby matching the rocks.

Brass instruments have slides for small adjustments, most woodwinds can push in or pull out their mouthpiece to tune, and electric keyboards are engineered for this tuning. The situation is less clear in different times and places. Medieval church music, with neumes written on four- line staves, had pitch indicators from the eleventh century, but cannot tell us the precise tuning

(McKinnon, 1990). Organs built in medieval Europe were tuned to a wide variety of pitches

(Thistlethwaite, 2003). Ethnographic music described by westerners is sometimes written in standard musical notation, but how exact is the tuning, is not necessarily recorded. A good example is the series of musical ethnologies of native North American tribes performed by the

Smithsonian Institution (Densmore, 1929). Studies could be done to see how common this tuning is worldwide and would show if this phenomenon is pervasive or restricted to western cultures.

Provisionally, it is interesting to note that pitches produced during flintknapping are very similar to human vocal ranges. This topic can be approached from two perspectives. When comparing audiograms between modern humans and other primates, humans uniquely have heightened sensitivity between 2,000 and 4,000 Hz, as seen in Figure 14. This range is roughly in the upper half of the range of human conversational speech frequencies. These pitches do not fall in the range of fundamental frequencies used during speech, but make up the first few harmonics that determine the tone color of a voice, how we identify an individual. Identifying individual group members is an important part of social behavior. The fundamental pitches of flintknapping sounds fall within the lower half of human conversational speech, and any additional harmonics would begin in this higher range. From a musical perspective, fundamental pitches of vocal ranges are organized by categories such as bass, tenor, alto, and

27 soprano. The male ranges of bass and tenor are approximately 100-523 Hz. The female ranges of alto and soprano are approximately 196-1046 Hz (Geringer, 1980; Henrich, 2011). The flintknapping range of 330-1568 Hz covers most of this range, except the lower portions, as can be seen in Figure 15. From either an auditory or a musical perspective, flintknapping sounds align with human vocal sounds in a range that helps us identify individuals.

What we also find significant about the sounds of the rocks is the outline of a hierarchy of perceived stability among pitch classes. The rocks present a specific pitch with an accompanying octave or two that defines acoustic parameters of a certain tool stone material.

World musics are set up in this way. Western tonal music is but one example of a hierarchy of sounds, and recent studies show a neurobiological representation of tonal hierarchy. Cortical populations that reflect prior knowledge of a tonal structure are used to give context to the perception of a pitch (Sankaran et al., 2020; Sankaran et al., 2018; Krumhansl & Kessler, 1982).

This is likely prevalent among all people but needs a formal study for confirmation. The accompanying question would be if this use of hierarchy is present in any other primates. If humans are unique in this phenomenon, flintknapping sounds are the most likely contributor to its selection. Rock music may have been a major influencer of human evolution.

Figure 14. Four sets of Audiograms showing hearing sensitivity ranges in Chimpanzees, Old World Monkeys, New World

Monkeys, and Prosimians and Scandentia in light gray lines as compared to humans in a dark gray line. (Quam et al., 2017).

Figure 15. Human vocal ranges and the range of flintknapping sounds.

References Allen, Emily J., Philip C. Burton, Cheryl A. Olman, and Andrew J. Oxenham. 2017. “Representations of Pitch and Timbre Variation in Human Auditory Cortex.” Journal of Neuroscience 37 (5): 1284–93. Anton, Susan C., Richard Potts, and Leslie C. Aiello. 2014. “Evolution of Early Homo: An Integrated Biological Perspective.” Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 345 (6192): 1236828. Badre, David and Mark D’Esposito. 2009. “Is the Rostro-caudal Axis of the Frontal Lobe Hierarchical?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10 (9): 659-669. Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Steven L. Kuhn. 1999. “The Big Deal About Blades: Laminar Technologies and Human Evolution.” American Anthropologist 101 (2): 322-338. Bendor, Daniel and Xiaoqin Wang. 2006. “Cortical Representation of Pitch in Monkeys and Humans.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16: 391-399. Benward, Bruce and Gary White. 1997. Music in Theory and Practice, Sixth Edition. Chicago, IL: Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Bidelman, Gavin M. and Ananthanarayan Krishnan. 2009. “Neural Correlates of Consonance, Dissonance, and the Hierarchy of Musical Pitch in the Human Brainstem.” Journal of Neuroscience 29 (42): 13165-13171. Bond, C. J. 2016. “Working Stone in the Past and Present: A Report on the Conference: Knapping Techniques, Manufacture and Replication Reconsidered.” Lithics 24: 91-99. Brawer, James R., D. Kent Morest, and Eileen Cohen Kane. 1974. “The Neuronal Architecture of the Cochlear Nucleus of the Cat.” Journal of Comparative Neurology 155 (3): 251-299. Butler, Ann B. and William Hodos. 2005. Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy, Evolution and Adaptation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Calford, M. B. and L. M. Aitkin. 1983. “Ascending Projections to the Medial Geniculate Body of the Cat: Evidence for Multiple, Parallel Auditory Pathways Through Thalamus.” Journal of Neuroscience 3 (11): 2365-2380. Chase, Steven M. and Eric D. Young. 2006. “Spike-Timing Codes Enhance the Representation of Multiple Simultaneous Sound-Localization Cues in the Inferior Colliculus.” Journal of Neuroscience 26 (15): 3889-3898. Clifton, Rachel K., Barbara A. Morrongiello, and John M. Dowd. 1984. “A Developmental Look at an Auditory Illusion: The Precedence Effect.” Developmental Psychobiology 17 (5): 519-536. Corbey, Raymond, Adam Jagich, Krist Vaesen, and Mark Collard. 2016. “The Acheulean Handaxe: More Like a Bird’s Song than a Beatles’ Tune?” Evolutionary Anthropology 25 (1): 6-19. Densmore, Frances. 1929a. “Papago Music.” Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology 90. Densmore, Frances. 1929b. “Pawnee Music.” Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology 93. Eguiluz, Victor M., Mark Ospeck, Y. Choe, A. J. Hudspeth, and Marcelo O. Magnasco. 2000. “Essential

Nonlinearities in Hearing.” Physical Review Letters 84: 5232-5235. Eren, Metin I., Aaron Greenspan, and C. Garth Sampson. 2008. “Are Upper Paleolithic Blade Cores More Productive Than Middle Paleolithic Discoidal Cores? A Replication Experiment.” Journal of Human Evolution 55 (6): 952-961. Eren, Metin I. and Stephen J. Lycett. 2012. “Why Levallois? A Morphometric comparison of Experimental ‘Preferential’ Levallois Flakes Versus Debitage Flakes.” PLoS One 7 (1): e29273. Eren, Metin I., Stephen J. Lycett, Robert J. Patten, Briggs Buchanan, Justin Pargeter, and Michael J. O’Brien. 2016. “Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-Driven Archaeology.” Ethnoarchaeology. Taylor and Francis Ltd. Everest, F. Alton and Ken c. Pohlmann. 2015. Master Handbook of Acoustics, Sixth Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Fenton, William N. and Gertrude Prokosch Kurath. 1952. “The Iroquois Eagle Dance an Offshoot of the Calumet Dance.” Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology 156. Formisano, Elia, Dae Shik Kim, Francesco Di Salle, Pierre Francois Van De Moortele, Kamil Ugurbil, and Rainer Goebel. 2003. “Mirror-Symmetric Tonotopic Maps in Human Primary Auditory Cortex.” Neuron 40 (4): 859–69. Geisler, C. Daniel. 1998. From Sound to Synapse: Physiology of the Mammalian Ear. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Geringer, John M., Janice K. Nelson, and Marilyn C. Kostka. 1980. “Differential Assessment of Child and Adult Singing Ranges.” Contributions to Music Education. 8: 39-46. Goldstein, J. L. 1967. “Auditory Nonlinearity.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 41 (3): 676–99. Grimsley, Jasmine M. S., Emily G. Hazlett, and Jeffrey J. Wenstrup. 2013. “Coding the Meaning of Sounds: Contextual Modulation of Auditory Responses in the Basolateral Amygdala.” Journal of Neuroscience 33 (44): 17538-17548. Grout, Donald J. and Claude V. Palisca. 1996. A History of Western Music, Fifth Edition. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Heffner, Rickye S. 2004. “Primate Hearing from a Mammalian Perspective.” In Anatomical Record - Part A Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, 281:1111–22. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Heil, Peter and Adam J. Peterson. 2016. “Spike Timing in Auditory Nerve Fibers during Spontaneous Activity and Phase Locking.” Synapse 71 (1): 5-36. Hellweg, Paul. 1984. Flintknapping: The Art of Making Stone Tools. Canyon Publishing Company. Henrich, Nathalie, John Smith, and Joe Wolfe. 2011. “Vocal Tract Resonances in Singing: Strategies Used by Sopranos, Altos, Tenors, and Baritones.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129 (2): 1024-1035. Jin, Jie. 2011. Chinese Music. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kandel, Eric R., James H. Schwartz, Thomas M. Jessell, Steven A. Siegelbaum, and A. J. Hudspeth, eds. 2013. Principles of Neural Science, Fifth Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Kimbel, W. H., R. C. Walter, D. C. Johanson, and K. E. Reed. 1996. “Late Pliocene Homo and Oldowan Tools from the Hadar Formation (Kada Hadar Member), Ethiopia.” Current Events in Human

Evolution Sourcebook. Koppl, Christine. 1997. “Phase Locking to High Frequencies in the Auditory Nerve and Cochlear Nucleus Magnocellularis of the Barn Owl, Tyto alba.” Journal of Neuroscience 17 (9): 3312-3321. Krumhansl, C. L. and E. J. Kessler. 1982. “Tracing the Dynamic Changes in Perceived Tonal Organization in a Spatial Representation of Musical Keys.” Psychological Review 89 (4): 334–368. Leakey, Meave G., Fred Spoor, M. Christopher Dean, Craig S. Feibel, Susan C. Anton, Christopher Kiarie, and Loise N. Leakey. 2012. “New Fossils from Koobi Fora in Northern Kenya Confirm Taxonomic Diversity in Early Homo.” Nature 488 (7410): 201-204. Lee, Chia-Fone, Peir-Rong Chen, Wen-Jeng Lee, Jhy-Horng Chen, and Tien-Chen Liu. 2009. “Three- Dimensional Reconstruction and Modeling of Middle Ear Biomechanics by High-Resolution Computed Tomography and Finite Element Analysis.” Laryngoscope 116 (5): 711-716. Lemorini, Cristina, Thomas W. Plummer, David R. Braun, Alyssa N. Crittenden, Peter W. Ditchfield, Laura C. Bishop, Fritz Hertel, James S. Oliver, Frank W. Marlowe, Margaret J. Schoeninger, and Richard Potts. 2014. “Old Stones’ Song: Use-wear Experiments and Analysis of the Oldowan Quartz and Quartzite Assemblage from Kanjera South (Kenya).” Journal of Human Evolution 72: 10-25. Lomber, Stephen G. and Shveta Malhotra. 2008. “Double Dissociation of ‘What’ and ‘Where’ Processing in Auditory Cortex.” Nature Neuroscience 11: 609-616. Loose, Richard. 2012. “That Old Music: A Reproduction of a Shell Trumpet from Pueblo Bonito.” Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico 38: 127-133.

Lord, John W. 1993. Flint Knapping: The Nature and Subsequent Uses of Flint. Ikarus Books.

Lovejoy, C. Owen. 1981. “The Origin of Man.” Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Lycett, Stephen J. 2008. “Acheulean Variation and Selection: Does Handaxe Symmetry Fit Neutral Expectations?” Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 2640-2648. Lycett, Stephen J. and Parth R. Chauhan. 2010. “Analytical Approaches to Palaeolithic Technologies: An Introduction.” In Lycett S. and P. Chauhan, eds. New Perspectives on Old Stones. New York, NY: Springer. Lycett, Stephen J. Kerstin Schillinger, Metin I. Eren, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, and Alex Mesoudi. 2016. “Factors Affecting Acheulean Handaxe Variation: Experimental Insights, Microevolutionary Processes, and Macroevolutionary Outcomes.” Quaternary International 411B: 386-401. Malm, William P. 1967. Music Cultures of the Pacific, the Near East, and Asia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. McDermott, J. H., A. F. Schultz, E. A. Undurraga, and R. A. Godoy. 2016. “Indifference to Dissonance in Native Amazonians Reveals Cultural Variation in Music Perception.” Nature 535 (7613): 547-50. McKinnon, James, ed. 1990. Antiquity and the Middle Ages, form Ancient Greece to the 15th Century. Hong Kong: Granada Group and The Macmillan Press Ltd. Montagu, Jeremy. 1981. “The Conch in Prehistory: Pottery, Stone and Natural.” World Archaeology 12 (3): 273-279. Norman-Haignere, Sam, Nancy Kanwisher, and Josh H. McDermott. 2013. “Cortical Pitch Regions in Humans Respond Primarily to Resolved Harmonics and Are Located in Specific Tonotopic Regions

of Anterior Auditory Cortex.” Journal of Neuroscience 33 (50): 19451–69. Oertel, Donata, Ramazan Bal, Stephanie M. Gardner, Philip H. Smith, and Philip X. Joris. 2000. “Detection of Synchrony in the Activity of Auditory Nerve Fibers by Octopus Cells of the Mammalian Cochlear Nucleus.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (22): 11773-11779. Owens, Steffan and Stuart Cunningham. 2018. “Auditory Masking and the Precedence Effect in Studies of Musical Timekeeping.” Proceedings of the Audio Mostly 2018 on Sound in Immersion and Emotion 25: 1-4. Patten, Robert J. 2005. Peoples of the Flute: A Study in Anthropolithic Forensics. Stone Dagger Publications. Patten, Robert J. 2009. Old Tools – New Eyes, A Primal Primer of Flintknapping, Second Edition. Stone Dagger Publications. Quam, Rolf M., Marissa A. Ramsier, Richard R. Fay, and Arthur N. Popper, eds. 2017. Primate Hearing and Communication. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. Rauschecker, Josef P. and Biao Tian. 2000. “Mechanisms and Streams for Processing of ‘What’ and ‘Where’ in Auditory Cortex.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97 (22): 11800- 11806. Robles, Luis, Mario A. Ruggero, and Nola C. Rich. 1991. “Two-Tone Distortion in the Basilar Membrane of the Cochlea.” Nature 349 (6308): 413–14. Rose, J. E., J. F. Brugge, D. J. Anderson, and J. E. Hind. 1967. “Phase-locked Response to Low-frequency Tones in Single Auditory Nerve Fibers of the Squirrel Monkey.” Journal of Neurophysiology 30 (4): 769-793. Saenz, Melissa, and Dave R.M. Langers. 2014. “Tonotopic Mapping of Human Auditory Cortex.” Hearing Research 307: 42-52. Sankaran, N., W. F. Thompson, S. Carlile, and T. A. Carlson. 2018. “Decoding the Dynamic Representation of Musical Pitch from Human Brain Activity.” Scientific Reports 8 (1): 1–9. Sankaran, N., T. A. Carlson, and W. F. Thompson. 2020. “The Rapid Emergence of Musical Pitch Structure in Human Cortex.” Journal of Neuroscience pii: 1399-19. Schofield, Brett R. 1995. “Projections from the Cochlear Nucleus to the Superior Paraolivary Nucleus in Guinea Pigs.” Journal of Comparative Neurology 360 (1): 135-149. Shipman, Pat and Alan Walker. 1989. “The Costs of Becoming a Predator.” Journal of Human Evolution 18 (4): 373-392. Smoorenburg, Guido F. 1972. “Combination Tones and Their Origin.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52 (2B): 615–32. Smoorenburg, Guido F. 1970. “Pitch Perception of Two-Frequency Stimuli.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 48: 924-942. Stepp, Cara E and Susan E. Voss. 2005. “Acoustics of the Human Middle-Ear Air Space.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118: 861-871. Stevens, Catherine J. 2012. “Music Perception and Cognition: A Review of Recent Cross-Cultural Research.” Topics in Cognitive Science 4: 653-667. Stout, Dietrich, Jan Apel, Julia Commander, and Mark Robers. 2014. “Late Acheulean Technology and Cognition at Boxgrove, UK.” Journal of Archaeological Science 41: 576-590.

Thistlethwaite, Nicholas and Geoffrey Webber, eds. 2003. The Cambridge Companion to the Organ. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, A. M. and B. R. Schofield. 2000. “Afferent Projections of the Superior Olivary Complex.” Microscopy Research Technique: 51 (4): 330-354. Tollin, Daniel J. and Tom C. T. Yin. 2003. “Psychophysical Investigation of an Auditory Spatial Illusion in Cats: The Precedence Effect.” Journal of Neurophysiology 90 (4): 2149-2162. Toth, Nicholas and Kathy Schick, eds. 2006. The Oldowan: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age. Gosport, IN: Stone Age Institute Press. Van Wanrooij, Marc M. and A. John Van Opstal. 2004. “Contribution of Head Shadow and Pinna Cues to Chronic Monaural Sound Localization.” Journal of Neuroscience 24 (17): 4163-4171. Vlaming, M. S. M. G. and L. Feenstra. 1986. “Studies on the Mechanics of the Reconstructed Human Middle Ear.” Clinical Otolaryngology & Allied Sciences 11 (6): 411-422. White, Harvey E. and Donald H. White. 2014. Physics and Music, The Science of Musical Sound. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Whittaker. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press.