sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acheulean, Gravettian, Oldowan

ARCHY 483 Analysis of Stone Artefacts Fall 2014 Lecture 5

Lower Palaeolithic: Olduwan &

“The succession of mental operations and technical gestures, in order to satisfy a need (immediate or not), according to a D------study: a count, orientation and chronological classification of all flake removals visible on an preexisting project" (Perles R------: fracture r------(r------of broken pieces) and r------(sequential r------). 1987:23).

A fine grained reading of technical activities: p----, m-----, u--, m------, d------

A classification system should avoid assumptions that cannot be empirically verified

- as end-point - Finished artefact fallacy - Waste

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/12/nyregion/slogan-causes-pencil-recall.html

What are we going to do today?

Outline of the Palaeolithic

Olduwan

Acheulean technology

Overview of the Palaeolithic Lower ?-300 ka BP, choppers, handaxes, (mode 1) & Acheulean (mode 2), Early in Africa Middle 300 ka to 60 ka BP, prepared-cores, retouched flakes, (Levallois) Upper 60 - ? ka BP, blades, , burins, Châtelperronian, ,, ,

Lower Palaeolithic

Oldovai Gorge (, , ) and later in and China

1964, Louis, Mary and , in Tanzania, excavating the first habilis. Oldest artefact in the Oldest artefact in the British Museum, from Smithsonian, Olduvai Olduvai Gorge, , 1.8 million Tanzania, 1.8-2 million old years old

Summary of Oldovan technology

1. Simple core forms, usually made on cobbles or chunks

2. Debitage: flakes, broken flakes, and other fragments struck from these cores

3. Battered percussors ( or spheroids) used to produce the flaking blows.

4. Retouched pieces, normally flakes or flake fragments that have been subsequently chipped along one or more edges. ’s classification system Mary Leakey’s classification system Nick Toth’s much more sensible classification system Nick Toth’s much more sensible classification system Why is Nick Toth’s classification system better than Mary Leakey’s? Big issues in Olduwan technology studies

- or ? - Hunters or scavengers? - Cultural traditions? Mode 1: involving the production of relatively unsophisticated non- standardized core and flake forms. Flakes are rarely sharpened or secondarily shaped. Some core forms may serve as heavy-duty cutting or bashing (Olduwan)

Mode 2: Lithic technology involving the production of large cutting tools (LCTs) through the purposeful shaping/ of stone. While LCTs primarily serve as heavy-duty cutting implements, they may also serve as basic core forms from which useable flakes are knapped (Acheulean). Mode 1: Lithic technology involving the production of relatively unsophisticated non- standardized core and flake forms. Flakes are rarely sharpened or secondarily shaped. Some core forms may serve as heavy-duty cutting or bashing tools (Olduwan)

Mode 2: Lithic technology involving the production of large cutting tools (LCTs) through the purposeful shaping/knapping of stone. While LCTs primarily serve as heavy-duty cutting implements, they may also serve as basic core forms from which useable flakes are knapped (Acheulean). The Acheulean

Found in Africa and much of West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Europe, and are typically found with remains. John Frere’s Hoxne Handaxe Boucher de Perthes’ handaxe (right) next to the Gray's Inn from Somme, France, now in Lane Handaxe in the British the Muséum de Toulouse Museum - cleavers Large Cutting Tool (LCT): A single heading for unifacially and bifacially knapped Acheulean tools picks of all types

Pre-form: a subjective term used to distinguish between -made artifact forms and less well-made tools Hand-axes have been subdivided into shape classes, such as discoid, cordiform triangular double pointed, etc…

Konso, Ethiopia Picks: thick, elongate, trihederal (Konso, Ethiopia)

The Movius Line

• Compared to East Africa and India, the frequency of handaxes in East Asia is lower • The percentage of bifaces in East Asian sites is much lower than similar sites from India and East Africa • East Asian handaxes are not morphologically similar to typical western Acheulean implements Lithic raw material differences have been assumed to determine morphology.

Experimental production indicates that tool plan- view and profile-view shape is not determined by raw material type.

Raw material differences as a predominant explanatory factor is probably unwarranted. Big issues in Acheulean technology studies

- and cognition? - Geographical distribution? - Cultural traditions? Summary Overview of Palaeolithic

Lower Palaeolithic

- Olduwan

- Acheulean

Definition of tool use (Beck, 1980)

• The tool must be: – free of any fixed connection to the substrate – outside the user's body at time of use – not attached part of the users body, – may or may not be animate The user must: – hold or carry tool prior to use – establish the proper and effective orientation between the tool and the incentive, (includes alteration of the form/ position/ condition of another object, organism, or the user)

Tool manufacture: – "any modification of an object by the user or a conspecific so that the object serves more effectively as a tool“ (Beck, 1980) We are not alone!

• Mud wasp: hold small unmodified pebbles in jaw to tamp down mud for nest construction • Galapagos island finches: use spines from cactus plants to probe for burrowing insects inside trees. Insects sense an invader and latch onto cactus spine, finch withdraws it and eats it • Californian sea otters: crack open clam shells using unmodified stone hammers or anvils

• < 20 non-primate animals that use tools, but • remarkable diversity of species • separated by long periods of evolutionary time, (>100my) • each tool using animal has many closely related species that don’t use tools • tool use = developed independently in unrelated species

• Oldowan technology ( 2.6 -1.5 mya) • (Olduvai Gorge) - Kenya, Hadar - Ethiopia • Swiss army with 6 attachments

(left to right): end chopper, heavy-duty , spheroid hammer stone, flake chopper; bone point, horn core tool or digger

Homo habilis….or not?

• boisei and H. habilis were contemporary at Olduvai for 1.4m years • Difficult to separate out remains – – Who made tools? Hh/ Pb/ both? – H. habilis = > brain size than Paranthropus boisei (Zinjanthropus) that Mary Leakey decided had to be the tool maker – Paranthropus may have used them???? • Did one species scavenge prey off the other? • Were hominins preying on hominins?

Significance of stone tools

• Small, sharp flake = technological and economic revolution  significant quantities of meat • Digging sticks permitted efficient access to underground food resources, e.g. tubers • Enriched diet & less seasonal = important in further expansion of the brain

Homo erectus

• 1.9-1.5mya HE cont. to use Oldowan technology

• 1.7 – 1.4mya  Acheulean : bifacially flaked tools

• Top-of-the-line gadget…the hand

• 1st fully conceived implements -

final form is regularly patterned, not stone; lanceolate hand suggested by shape/ exterior axe, large texture of stone made from Homo erectus

• Oldowan: hit the stone = sharp flake you could cut with it

• Acheulean: shaped implements for specific tasks, flaking all edges, worked to get longer, straighter and sharper implements – Need expertise & knowledge of lithic technology – Wear patterns – “habitual and systematic butchery, and especially the dismembering of large animal carcasses” (Schick and Toth) – Strong dietary shift towards more meat consumption Movius Line

• Acheulean tools were found throughout Africa, , Europe and W Asia, but, absent in Far East and SE Asia – • Striking overlap with natural occurrence of bamboo

• Bamboo can be used to make almost anything including stick that can be used to butcher animals

Role of shelter in geographic spread & species longevity

• 400,000 – 300,000mybp Terra Amata (under ) • Homo erectus or H heidelburgensis? • 1960’s by Henry de Lumley – ancient postholes & concentrated artefacts of several (6-15m long x 4-6m wide) • De Lumley: roofs supported by 2 or more large posts, walls made of saplings and branches. Hold c.15 people Role of in geographic spread & species longevity

• Terra Amata: in the centre of each reconstructed was a (compact area of baked & discoloured sand), some ringed by windscreen of stones • No evidence of , burnt for warmth • Around one hearth impressions on the floor that were apparently made by animal skins, - did inhabitants sleep by the fire at night ?

Chaîne opératoire Classification Summary Raw materials

Cores

Chaîne opératoire

Classification