DOCSLIB.ORG

C H a P T E R VII Comparison of Stone Age Cultures the Cultural

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C H a P T E R VII Comparison of Stone Age Cultures the Cultural 158 CHAPTER VII Comparison of Stone Age Cultures The cultural horizons ami pleistocene sequences of the Upper Son Valley are compared with the other regions to know their positions in the development of Stone Age Cultures* However, ft must not be forgotten that the industries of various regions were more or less in­ fluenced by the local factors: the environment, geology f topography, vegetation, climate and animals; hence some vsriitions are bound to occur in them* The comparison is first made with industries within India and then with those outside India. i) Within India • Punjab Potwar The Potwar region, which lies between the Indus and Jhebm, including the Salt Range, was examined by Oe Terra and Pater son. The latter has recently published a revised 2 stuiy of the cultural horizons. 1. De Terra, H., and Paterson, T.T., 1939, Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Culture, pp.252-312 2. Paterson, T.T., and Drummond, H.J.H., 1962, Soan,the Palaeolithic of Pakistan. These scholars had successfully located six terraces (Including TD) in the Sohan Valley: "nowhere else in the Potwar is the leistocene history so well recorded as along the So&n Hiver and its tributaries.w The terraces TD and TI placed in the Second Glacial and Second Inter- glacial, respectively fall in the Middle Pleistocene, terraces ? and 3 originated in Third Glacial and Inter- glaual period. Th succeeding terrace viz., T4 has bean connected with the Fourth Glacial period. The last terrace - T5 - belongs to Post-glacLal and Holacene time. The oldest artifacts are located in the Boulder Con­ glomerate and are placed in the earliest Middle Pleisto­ cene or Lower Pleistocene. The collection contains six flakes and two pebble tools, rill today this industry was known as 'Prc-Sohan' industry but now Paterson inclines to call it Lower Sohan A. The tools in Lower Sohan 3 are found from the high deposi tional surface of the Boul jer Conglomerate wti placed in the first phase of the Middle Pleistocene. The third cultural stage, called fMiddle Sohan A» is located on the highest deposit\onal terrace surface of the Boulder Conglomerate which belongs to the beginning of the second phase of the Middle Pleistocene. Middle Sohan B occurs in gravels of the second phase of the Middle 3. Paterson, T.T., and Drummond, H.J.H., 1962, Soan, the Palaeolithic of Pakistan., po. co-60 .. • • • • . • Pleistocene, The tools of the Upper Sohan divided into two phases, viz., Upper Sohan A and Upper Sohan B are found in the gravels of third glacial age (Terrace 2) and the basal gravels of the terrace 3 and dated to the first phase and the second phase of the Upper Pleistocene, respectively. The First Sohan industry comes from Dhok Pathan and the Fourth Glacial Age. "he Upp^r Glacton industry, classified into two groups, occurs in the basal gravel and in the Potwar Loess, a few f>et above the gravel. As It intervenes between the Upper Sohan A and Upper Sohan B, it is regarded as an intrusive culture. The Abbevillio-Acheulian and Acheulian artifacts sre dafd to the second phase of the Middle Pleisto ene and the second phase of the Uoprr Pleistocene and ailed 'Middle Stellenbosch1 and *Upper Stellenbosch', respectively. At Morgan the Acheulian tools are found a Ion? with the tools of the Upper Sohan and hence it is designated ris fUpp*r Sohan stellenbosch. ^he results of the Italian expeditions show that hand- axes, cleavers and pebble tools come from the same hori­ zon. 4. Paterson, T.T. and Crummond, H.J.H., 1962, Soan, the Palaeolithic of Pakistan, p. 92 5. Ibid., pp. 95 ff. 6. C-raziosi, P., 1964, Prehistoric Research in Worth- Western Punjab, pp. 13-47 The choppers of our collection made on rounded or oval pebbles, and generally having flat under surface cannot be compared with Sohanian choppers as the latter show a large flake scar on their surfaces, while the choppers of the Upper Son Valley have a few scars. Some chopping-tools and -H scolds may go with the similar tools of the Sohan. lllan and Acheullan handaxes are also comparable with the handaxes of all the three stapes of the Upper Son Valley. However, it must be mentioned that the industries of both the regions belong to two different trad: tions—chopper-chopDing-tool and handaxe and to completely different environmental features. The microliths made of jasoer and flint were also picked up from the Potwar loess surface,' but details are not available and hence the comparison of these tools with similar ones cannot be made. Beas and Bangan^a Valleys In the Banganga Valley near Guler, five terraces were traced by Lai. The first terrace having the height of 565 ft. from the river bed an-3 1964 ft. above 7. Krishnaswami, V.D., 1947, Stone Age India, A.I.. No.3, p. 22 1. Lai, B.B., 1956, Palaeoliths from the Bees and Banganga Valleys, Punjab, A.I.. Ho.l2, pv* 59-92 sta-level is formed by large-sized boulders, intermixed with medium to small sized sub-angular pebbles and over­ lain by reddish sandy soil. The tools were found mostly on th* surface. The terrace 2 with an height of 375 ft. from the river-level is constituted by the deposits of gravel and silt. PalaColiths were discovered from the nullah and the slope of <ht terrace. Ae a heirtit of 150 ft. from the river-level is T^ consisting of medium sized boulder following by a thin layer of silt. 0n the level of 90 ft. and 30 ft. ?re the terraces 4 and 5. No tool could br encountered from them. At Dehra on the river Beas, from a thick gravel-bee* of a terrace at the height of 115 ft. from the river- 1 vel, pal':coliths were discovered. 2 About the genuineness of some of the tools, doubts are raised because of the Bangaaga and Beas originate from the hi«rh Himalayas* C.A. Bur land, who investigated Cromer Baach, Norfolk, writes that he rot "hundreds of stones, there were some hundred and fifty that ware worth second examination - of thes<* twenty-three were of sufficient interest to bring- home Tor meditation." A$ter the discovery 2. Burland, C.A., 1950, The High level gravels: k com­ parison with Cromer Beach, SAAB, Vol. V, pp. 23 of Banganga and Beas tools, Desmond Clark showed from the evidence recovered from the Batoka gorge^ that rivers falling from a high altitude yield flaked-pebbles and flake-b removed by natural agencies. However, on this point, nothing can be «aid with certainty unless a de­ tailed re-exam!nation of these valleys is lone, but the association of higher altituie with these tools cannot be rale: out from our mind. The choppers and chopning-tools cannot be compared with the similar tools of Upoer Son Valley. The discoidi of these Valleys are v^ry inferior. Ho specimen is comparable with the pebble-head ixes of Benganpia /alley. The \bbevillian handaxea also cannot be compared. lo^'ever, we fail to have a fair idea about the Acheullan hand­ le from the ire Wing and therefor* difficulty is f*cd in the comparison. Sirsa Valley >en explored the area around tfalgarh on the river Slrsa, a tributary of the SutleJ. He located three terraces having heights of 70 ft., 40 ft. and 10 ft. and 3. Clark, J.D., The Natural "racture of Pebbles rrom Batoka Gorge, Northern Rhodesia, and its bearing on the Kafuan industries of -frica, 195 **, fPS* Vol. :nv, pp. 64-67 1. Jen, D., Halagarh Palaeolithic Culture, ...IM 1955, V„l. 35, N0.3, Pp. 177-1*4 named them, Upper, Middle and Lower, gxcept latter, both of then are covered by gravel spread. The distinction between then is made on the n? ture of gravels. The Upper Terrace has cemented gravel, while the Lower unconsolidated and covered by thin layer of silt or clay* The tools discovered from this valley are made on fine grained ^uarzite. They fall into two groups: pebble tools «>ni flake tools. There is not much typological variation between the tools from the Upper and Middle terraces except that pebble tools appear to be slightly more frequent in the Upper terrace than in the Middle terrace and that the general workmanship of the tools from the Middle terrace.^ Prufer claimed to have fossil wood artifacts fron some sites , but in the absence of detailed description and illustration of these artifacts, noth ing can be said on their natur g tad relationship with palaeolithic tools. Flakes having high angles with centered or simple unseated platforms are found, and there is no evidence of Levallolsian flakes. These flakes may be compared with the flakes of the Upper Son Valley. 2. Sen, D., Nalagarh Palaeolithic Culture, **«!„. 1955$ Vol. 35, N0.3, PP. *2£x*ix 130 3. Ibid., P' iei Gujarat In the Sabarmati Valley, Gujarat, the artifacts of -SA industry come from the gravel conglomerate, the junction of gravel and silt and the lower half of the silt. This industry contains choppers, chopping*tools, discoids, handaxes, cleavers and flakes. Both types of tools--cruder and fine*—made by 'stone hammer* and •cylinder ha rmer1 techniques are found from the bottom stratum—gravel conglomerate, and, therefore, the cultural evolution or technical development cannot be attested. :7ron rhe UpprT Son Valley the implements of this industry— though they are divided Into three stages—are found from the lower horizon; no specimen comes "rom the junction of gravel and silt or silt.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blades), Side Scrapers
    226 • PaleoAnthropology 2008 Figure 5. Tool types assigned to the Tres Ancien Paléolithique and the Lower Paleolithic. blades), side scrapers (single, double, and transverse), In Romanian archaeology, it is used as a synonym for the backed knives (naturally backed and with retouched back), Pebble Culture and is meant to designate Mode I indus- and notches/denticulates (Figure 6). tries, as can be inferred from the typology of the material (see Figure 5). Discussion A very difficult issue is learning what meaning under- tErMINoLOGY lies the term Lower Paleolithic itself. In order to clarify this This is a topic that is still very unclear for the Lower Pa- problem, one must look back a few decades, when there leolithic record of Romania. Inconsistencies regarding the was a belief that the cultures that postdate the Pebble Cul- terms are mentioned here. ture were the Abbevillian, Acheulian and Clactonian, all emerging from Pebble Culture industries. After the cul- tres Ancien Paléolithique (tAP) tural meaning of the Abbevillian and the Clactonian were This term refers, sensu Bonifay (Bonifay and Vandermeer- challenged, in Romanian archaeology the framing of this sch 1991), to industries that were prior to the emergence period became more cautious. There was no explicit shift of developed Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technology. defended in publications, but gradually the two terms fell Figure 6. Tool types assigned to the Premousterian. Lower Paleolithic of Romania • 227 out of use in defining distinct industries and became just supposed to be either Clactonian or Premousterian. Some- a typological and a technical description, respectively. At times, due to the particular morphology of the piece, ad- the same time, the existence of the Acheulian north of the ditional interpretations were made regarding the piece’s Danube was no longer claimed, but the term still was used various presumed functions, such as cutting, crushing and in classification of bifaces.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basques of Lapurdi, Zuberoa, and Lower Navarre Their History and Their Traditions
    Center for Basque Studies Basque Classics Series, No. 6 The Basques of Lapurdi, Zuberoa, and Lower Navarre Their History and Their Traditions by Philippe Veyrin Translated by Andrew Brown Center for Basque Studies University of Nevada, Reno Reno, Nevada This book was published with generous financial support obtained by the Association of Friends of the Center for Basque Studies from the Provincial Government of Bizkaia. Basque Classics Series, No. 6 Series Editors: William A. Douglass, Gregorio Monreal, and Pello Salaburu Center for Basque Studies University of Nevada, Reno Reno, Nevada 89557 http://basque.unr.edu Copyright © 2011 by the Center for Basque Studies All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Cover and series design © 2011 by Jose Luis Agote Cover illustration: Xiberoko maskaradak (Maskaradak of Zuberoa), drawing by Paul-Adolph Kaufman, 1906 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Veyrin, Philippe, 1900-1962. [Basques de Labourd, de Soule et de Basse Navarre. English] The Basques of Lapurdi, Zuberoa, and Lower Navarre : their history and their traditions / by Philippe Veyrin ; with an introduction by Sandra Ott ; translated by Andrew Brown. p. cm. Translation of: Les Basques, de Labourd, de Soule et de Basse Navarre Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Classic book on the Basques of Iparralde (French Basque Country) originally published in 1942, treating Basque history and culture in the region”--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-877802-99-7 (hardcover) 1. Pays Basque (France)--Description and travel. 2. Pays Basque (France)-- History. I. Title. DC611.B313V513 2011 944’.716--dc22 2011001810 Contents List of Illustrations..................................................... vii Note on Basque Orthography.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • A CRITICAL EVALUATION of the LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD of the CHALK UPLANDS of NORTHWEST EUROPE Lesley
    A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE LOWER-MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD OF THE CHALK UPLANDS OF NORTHWEST EUROPE The Chilterns, Pegsdon, Bedfordshire (photograph L. Blundell) Lesley Blundell UCL Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD September 2019 2 I, Lesley Blundell, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: 3 4 Abstract Our understanding of early human behaviour has always been and continues to be predicated on an archaeological record unevenly distributed in space and time. More than 80% of British Lower-Middle Palaeolithic findspots were discovered during the late 19th/early 20th centuries, the majority from lowland fluvial contexts. Within the British planning process and some academic research, the resultant findspot distributions are taken at face value, with insufficient consideration of possible bias resulting from variables operating on their creation. This leads to areas of landscape outside the river valleys being considered to have only limited archaeological potential. This thesis was conceived as an attempt to analyse the findspot data of the Lower-Middle Palaeolithic record of the Chalk uplands of southeast Britain and northern France within a framework complex enough to allow bias in the formation of findspot distribution patterns and artefact preservation/discovery opportunities to be identified and scrutinised more closely. Taking a dynamic, landscape = record approach, this research explores the potential influence of geomorphology, 19th/early 20th century industrialisation and antiquarian collecting on the creation of the Lower- Middle Palaeolithic record through the opportunities created for artefact preservation and release.
    [Show full text]
  • The Earliest Evidence of Acheulian Occupation in Northwest
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Received: 5 December 2017 Accepted: 19 August 2019 Quignon site, Somme valley, France Published: xx xx xxxx Pierre Antoine1, Marie-Hélène Moncel2, Pierre Voinchet2, Jean-Luc Locht1,3, Daniel Amselem2, David Hérisson 4, Arnaud Hurel2 & Jean-Jacques Bahain2 The dispersal of hominin groups with an Acheulian technology and associated bifacial tools into northern latitudes is central to the debate over the timing of the oldest human occupation of Europe. New evidence resulting from the rediscovery and the dating of the historic site of Moulin Quignon demonstrates that the frst Acheulian occupation north of 50°N occurred around 670–650 ka ago. The new archaeological assemblage was discovered in a sequence of fuvial sands and gravels overlying the chalk bedrock at a relative height of 40 m above the present-day maximal incision of the Somme River and dated by ESR on quartz to early MIS 16. More than 260 fint artefacts were recovered, including large fakes, cores and fve bifaces. This discovery pushes back the age of the oldest Acheulian occupation of north-western Europe by more than 100 ka and bridges the gap between the archaeological records of northern France and England. It also challenges hominin dispersal models in Europe showing that hominins using bifacial technology, such as Homo heidelbergensis, were probably able to overcome cold climate conditions as early as 670–650 ka ago and reasserts the importance of the Somme valley, where Prehistory was born at the end of the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Glaciation (Oakley, 1950). Variations in the Proposed Beginning Dates
    EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN HAND AMD THE GREAT HAND-AXE TRADITION Grover S. Krantz The hand-axe is both the earliest and the longest persisting of standar- dized stone tools. They present a continuous history of one tool type from the first to the third interglacial periods, a span.of at least 200,000 years and perhaps as many as half a million. Equally remarkable is their geographical range which covers all of Africa, western Europe and southern Asia--fully half of-the then habitable Old Vorld. Aside from differences in the local stone that was utilized, hand-axes from this whole area are constructed on the same plan and show no clear regional typology. Other tool types occur with hand-axes: utilized flakes are found at all levels, and in the later half of the sequence there-are cleavers, ovates, trimmed flakes and spherical stone balls. Throughout the sequence, however, the basic design of the hand-axe continues with its intended formnapparently unchanged. We thus have a continuous record of man's attempts to produce a single type of 'implement over mst of his tool making history. (See Figure 1.) Recent discoveries of fossil man have made it increasingly evident that biological evolution of the human body was also in progress coincident with the development of ancient stone tool types. 'While the exact time of appearance of Homo siens is still in some dispute (see Stewart, 1950 and Oakley., 1957), it is no nowseriously maintained that the earliest tool makers necessarily approximated the modern or even the neanderthal morphologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Historiographical Approaches to Past Archaeological Research
    Historiographical Approaches to Past Archaeological Research Gisela Eberhardt Fabian Link (eds.) BERLIN STUDIES OF THE ANCIENT WORLD has become increasingly diverse in recent years due to developments in the historiography of the sciences and the human- ities. A move away from hagiography and presentations of scientifi c processes as an inevitable progression has been requested in this context. Historians of archae- olo gy have begun to utilize approved and new histo- rio graphical concepts to trace how archaeological knowledge has been acquired as well as to refl ect on the historical conditions and contexts in which knowledge has been generated. This volume seeks to contribute to this trend. By linking theories and models with case studies from the nineteenth and twentieth century, the authors illuminate implications of communication on archaeological knowledge and scrutinize routines of early archaeological practices. The usefulness of di erent approaches such as narratological concepts or the concepts of habitus is thus considered. berlin studies of 32 the ancient world berlin studies of the ancient world · 32 edited by topoi excellence cluster Historiographical Approaches to Past Archaeological Research edited by Gisela Eberhardt Fabian Link Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2015 Edition Topoi / Exzellenzcluster Topoi der Freien Universität Berlin und der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Typographic concept and cover design: Stephan Fiedler Printed and distributed by PRO BUSINESS digital printing Deutschland GmbH, Berlin ISBN 978-3-9816384-1-7 URN urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-100233492 First published 2015 The text of this publication is licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC 3.0 DE.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Biface Assemblages in Middle Pleistocene Western Europe. A
    University of Southampton Research Repository ePrints Soton Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", University of Southampton, name of the University School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination http://eprints.soton.ac.uk UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF LAW, ART and SOCIAL SCIENCES SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES Non-Biface Assemblages in Middle Pleistocene Western Europe. A comparative study. by Hannah Louise Fluck Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2011 1 2 Abstract This thesis presents the results of an investigation into the Clactonian assemblages of Middle Pleistocene souther Britain. By exploring other non-biface assemblages (NBAs) reported from elsewhere in Europe it seeks to illuminate our understanding of the British assemblages by viewing them in a wider context. It sets out how the historical and geopolitical context of Palaeolithic research has influenced what is investigated and how, as well as interpretations of assemblages without handaxes. A comparative study of the assemblages themselves based upon primary data gathered specifically for that purpose concludes that while there are a number of non-biface assemblages elsewhere in Europe the Clactonian assemblages do appear to be a phenomenon unique to the Thames Valley in early MIS 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Tool Industries of the European Paleolithic: Insights Into Hominid Evolution and Shifts in Archaeological Theory and Practice from the James B
    TOOL INDUSTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN PALEOLITHIC: INSIGHTS INTO HOMINID EVOLUTION AND SHIFTS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY AND PRACTICE FROM THE JAMES B. BULLITT COLLECTION by Sophie K. Joseph Honors Thesis Department of Anthropology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2020 Approved: ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– R. P. Stephen Davis, PhD (Advisor) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Laurie C. Steponaitis, PhD –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Silvia Tomášková, PhD ABSTRACT From early archaeological excavation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to modern conceptions of Paleolithic stone tool evolution, radiometric dating techniques and studies of paleoenvironment have revolutionized the study of relationships and divisions between these different lithic industries. In addition, there has been a shift from the formal to the functional approach when categorizing lithic industries through time. This project aims to examine how lithic industries in France changed through the Paleolithic and early Neolithic using a curated sample from Dr. James B. Bullitt’s contribution to the North Carolina Archaeological Collection. Early and contemporary archaeological literature about early stone tools are compared and connected to broad theoretical shifts in the field since the 1800s. Because many artifacts in the Collection are used as teaching aids, it is hoped that this project provides insight into the value of the Collection to the study of about Paleolithic hominid evolution. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor and thesis committee chair Dr. Davis: without his diligent guidance and investment of time, this project truly would not have been possible. Furthermore, the James B. Bullitt Collection and larger North Carolina Archeological Collection would not be in the incredibly organized and accessible state they are today without Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 9 Prehistoric Typology*
    UNIT 9 PREHISTORIC TYPOLOGY* Contents 9.0 Introduction 9.1 Classifying Tools into Types 9.1.1 Some Key Concepts 9.2 Palaeolithic Stone Tools 9.2.1 Lower Palaeolithic 9.2.2 Middle Palaeolithic 9.2.3 Upper Palaeolithic 9.3 Mesolithic Tools 9.4 Neolithic Tools 9.5 Ceramic Types 9.5.1 Types of Pottery 9.5.2 Surface Treatment 9.5.3 Firing 9.5.4 Some Example of Pottery Type 9.6 Summary 9.7 References 9.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Learning Objectives Once you have studied this unit, you should be able to: Identify tools belonging to different prehistoric cultural periods; Differentiate between two sets of tools; Discuss how and in what manner the tools were used by prehistoric people; and Find out the gradual change in typo-technology as a result of changes in environment and human culture. 9.0 INTRODUCTION When we study prehistoric tools many questions come to our mind. Why do we study Stone Age tools? How many are there? What is the need to study them? The answer is very simple. A proper discussion on tools and implements used by prehistoric people can reveal many things about the past. For instance, it can tell us about the changes that occurred in the material culture of prehistoric people in terms of technique, use of raw material, and even in terms of usage. These in the long run can help us recreate not only material aspects of culture but also certain intangible aspects of their culture. The study of different types of tools is mainly aimed at establishing the different tool- making techniques practiced by prehistoric people at different places in the initial phases 112 * Contributed by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Origins of the Acheulean – Past and Present Perspectives
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UCL Discovery The origins of the Acheulean – past and present perspectives on a major transition in human evolution Ignacio de la Torre* *Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY, UK Abstract: The emergence of the Acheulean from the earlier Oldowan constitutes a major transition in human evolution, the theme of this special issue. This paper discusses the evidence for the origins of the Acheulean, a cornerstone in the history of human technology, from two perspectives; firstly, a review of the history of investigations on Acheulean research is presented. This approach introduces the evolution of theories throughout the development of the discipline, and reviews the way in which cumulative knowledge led to the prevalent explanatory framework for the emergence of the Acheulean. The second part presents the current state of the art in Acheulean origins research, and reviews the hard evidence for the appearance of this technology in Africa around 1.7 million years ago, and its significance for the evolutionary history of Homo erectus. Keywords: Acheulean; History of palaeoanthropology; Early Stone Age; Archaeology of human origins 1 Introduction Spanning c. 1.7-0.1 million years (Myr), the Acheulean is the longest-lasting technology in Prehistory. Its emergence from the Oldowan constitutes one of the major transitions in human evolution, and is also an intensely investigated topic in current Early Stone Age research. This paper reviews the evidence for the origins of the Acheulean from two perspectives: the history of research, where changes in the historiographic conception of the Acheulean are discussed, and the current state-of- the-art on Acheulean origins, which will include a review of the hard evidence and an assessment of its implications.
    [Show full text]
  • The Palaeolithic Occupation of Europe As Revealed by Evidence from the Rivers: Data from IGCP 449
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by EPrints Complutense The Palaeolithic occupation of Europe as revealed by evidence from the rivers: data from IGCP 449 DAVID R. BRIDGLAND,h PIERRE ANTOINE/ NICOLE LlMONDIN-LOZOUET/ JUAN I. SANTISTEBAN/ ROB WESTAWAy4t and MARK J. WHITEs 1 Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK 2 UMR CNRS 8591-Laboratoire de Geographie Physique, 1 Place Aristide Briand, 92195 Meudon cedex, France 3 Departamento Estratigraffa, Facultad Ciencias Geol6gicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Calle Jose Antonio Novais 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain 4 Faculty of Mathematics and Computing, The Open University, Eldon House, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 3PW, UK 5 Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK ABSTRACT: IGCP 449 (2000-2004), seeking to correlate fluvial records globally, has compiled a dataset of archaeological records from Pleistocene fluvial sequences. Many terrace sequences can now be reliably dated and correlated with marine oxygen isotope stages (M IS), allowing potentially useful patterns in artefact distribution to be recognised. This review, based on evidence from northwest European and German sequences (Thames, Somme, Ilm, Neckar and Wipper), makes wider comparisons with rivers further east, particularly the Vltava, and with southern Europe, especially Iberia. The northwest and southern areas have early assemblages dominated by handaxes, in contrast with flake-core industries in Germany and further east. Fluvial sequences can provide frameworks for correlation, based on markers within the Palaeolithic record. In northwest Europe the first appearance of artefacts in terrace staircases, the earliest such marker, dates from the mid-late Cromerian Complex.
    [Show full text]
  • BLOCK 3 UNDERSTANDING PREHISTORIC CULTURES 90 Blank
    BLOCK 3 UNDERSTANDING PREHISTORIC CULTURES 90 Blank 9 0 UNIT 7 PREHISTORIC TECHNOLOGY* Contents 7.0 Introduction 7.1 Identification of Techniques used by Prehistoric People 7.1.1 Some Key Concepts 7.2 Palaeolithic Stone Tool Technology 7.2.1 Lower Palaeolithic 7.2.2 Middle Palaeolithic 7.2.3 Upper Palaeolithic 7.3 Mesolithic Stone Tool Technology 7.4 Neolithic Stone Tool Technology 7.5 Ceramic Technology 7.6 Summary 7.7 References 7.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Learning Objectives Once you have studied this unit, you should be able to: Discuss the major techniques of tool making in prehistory; Discuss how and in what manner one technique differed from the other; and Find out the gradual change in technology as a result of changes in environment and human culture. 7.0 INTRODUCTION The study of prehistoric stone tool technology is important because it tells us the evolution of not only tool or artifact making and its usage, but also because it tells us about human evolution both biological as well as cultural. The tools that people manufactured throughout their long history have been the means by which they augmented their limbs and extended the use of the environment. In the Stone Age, the people used simple tools at their disposal to make the prehistoric tools like handaxe, chopper, scraper and other types as well as pottery, but it is also true that they had a working knowledge of rock types and what rock types would suit what kind of tool manufacturing technique. 7.1 IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNIQUES USED BY PREHISTORIC PEOPLE When we look at the different tools found at different sites across the world, we cannot but marvel at how our ancestors must have created them.
    [Show full text]