DOCSLIB.ORG

Lithic Technology, Human Evolution, and the Emergence of Culture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lithic Technology, Human Evolution, and the Emergence of Culture Evolutionary Anthropology 109 ARTICLES On Stony Ground: Lithic Technology, Human Evolution, and the Emergence of Culture ROBERT FOLEY AND MARTA MIRAZO´ N LAHR Culture is the central concept of anthropology. Its centrality comes from the fact human evolution different and what it that all branches of the discipline use it, that it is in a way a shorthand for what is that it is necessary to explain. It is at makes humans unique, and therefore defines anthropology as a separate disci- once part of our biology and the thing pline. In recent years the major contributions to an evolutionary approach to that sets the limits on biological ap- culture have come either from primatologists mapping the range of behaviors, proaches and explanations. Just to among chimpanzees in particular, that can be referred to as cultural or “proto- add further confusion to the subject, it cultural”1,2 or from evolutionary theorists who have developed models to account is also that which is universally shared for the pattern and process of human cultural diversification and its impact on by all humans and, at the same time, human adaptation.3–5 the word used to demarcate differ- ences between human societies and groups. As if this were not enough for Theoretically and empirically, pa- that paleoanthropology can play in any hard-worked concept, it is both a leoanthropology has played a less the development of the science of cul- trait itself and also a process. When prominent role, but remains central to tural evolution. In particular, we want treated as a trait, culture can be con- the problem of the evolution of cul- to consider the way in which informa- sidered to be the trait or the means by ture. The gap between a species that tion from stone-tool technology can which that trait is acquired, transmit- includes Shakespeare and Darwin be used to map the pattern of cultural ted, changed, and used (that is, among its members and one in which evolution and thus throw light on the learned, taught, and socially passed a particular type of hand-clasp plays a nature of the apparent gap that lies on). It exists in the heads of humans major social role has to be significant. between humans and chimpanzees. and is manifested in the products of However, that gap is an arbitrary one, First, we discuss the various meanings actions. To add one further dimen- filled by the extinction of hominin of the culture concept and the role of sion, culture is seen by some as the species other than Homo sapiens. Pa- paleoanthropology in its use. Second, equivalent of the gene, and hence a leoanthropology has the potential to we look at how stone-tool technology particulate unit (the meme) that can fill that gap, and thus provide more of can be used to map cultural evolution be added together in endless permu- a continuum between humans and and provide insights into the cultural tations and combinations, while to other animals. Furthermore, it pro- capacities of different hominin spe- others it is as a large and indivisible vides the context, and hence the selec- cies. Third, we consider the inferences whole that it takes on its significance. tive environment, in which cultural that can be made from stone-tool In other words, culture is everything capabilities evolved, and so may pro- technology for the timing of major to anthropology, and it could be ar- vide insights into the costs and bene- events in cultural evolution. gued that in the process it has also fits involved in evolving cultural adap- become nothing.3,5–10 tations. The pervasive nature of the culture In this paper we focus on the role EVOLUTION, CULTURE AND concept means that evolutionary an- ANTHROPOLOGY thropology must also tackle the prob- lems it throws up. This is not the place Culture in Anthropology either to argue that the concept should be abandoned as of little or no Robert Foley and Marta Mirazo´ n Lahr are Culture is the jam in the sandwich at the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evo- of anthropology. It is all-pervasive. It analytical utility (one of us attempted lutionary Studies at the University of Cam- is used to distinguish humans from this several years ago, to no noticeable bridge, Downing Street, Cambridge. E-mail: 11 [email protected] and [email protected] apes (“everything that man does that effect ) nor to come up with a cut- the monkeys do not” (Lord Raglan)) ting-edge redefinition that will clear and to characterize evolutionarily de- away a century of obfuscation (we Evolutionary Anthropology 12:109–122 (2003) rived behaviors in both living apes leave that in the capable hands of the DOI 10.1002/evan.10108 Published online in Wiley InterScience and humans. It is often both the ex- Editor of Evolutionary Anthropol- (www.interscience.wiley.com). planation of what it is that has made ogy). Rather, we wish to consider how 110 Evolutionary Anthropology ARTICLES TABLE 1. Cultural Capacity Is Cognitively Based, but Is Correlated With a Number of Manifestations in the Realms of Learning, Social Organization, Symbolic Expression, and Patterns of Tradition. These Expressions May in Turn Be Visible in the Archeological and Fossil Record Broad Correlative Components of Culture Potential Paleobiological Manifestations Learning capacity Technology and technological variation Brain size? Social organization and structure Archeological density, structure and distribution Sexual dimorphism in fossil hominins Nonecologically functional elements of material culture Traits associated with symbolic thought Brain size? Anatomical basis for language Variation in material culture Tradition maintenance and change Regional variation and longevity of archeological components those aspects of anthropology that fore be a diachronic process. Compar- sistence through time). The possible deal with the deep past of the human isons between two living species, hu- paleobiological correlates of these are lineage—paleoanthropology—might mans and chimpanzees, can only shown in Table 1.12 throw light on the evolution of culture examine outcomes, not the actual pro- and the role it may have played in cess of transition. This must be in- EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY IN 12 human evolution. ferred. The actual development of THE STONES: WHAT CAN THEY The problem in attempting this is more and more culture-bearing homi- that the sources of such evidence are nins must have occurred among spe- TELL US? limited, especially if little recourse is cies that are now extinct, to whom our We can now turn to stone technol- made either to analogical or phyloge- only access is through the fossil and ogy. From over two million years netic inferences from chimpanzees archeological record. lithic artifacts provide a rich and du- and other primates or extrapolation To search for something in the fos- rable source of information about the back from ethnography and psychol- sil and archeological records requires behavior of extinct hominins, and ogy. Paleoanthropology is limited to knowing what one is looking for, so thus greatly expand on the anatomical the archeological record for the evi- that a consideration of definitions of fossil evidence. The question to ask is dence it throws either on hominin culture cannot be entirely avoided. what sort of information can be de- cognition, and hence culture, or else Definitions of culture largely fall into rived from stone tools? on the cultural manifestations of be- two broad groups. Either they involve Archeologists have basically come havior. In practice, this means using the actual end products of behaviors up with two answers to this question. the record of stone tools, the primary that are inherently human (technol- On one hand, patterns in technology source of information about the be- ogy, for example) or they focus on the have been used to reconstruct popula- havior of prehuman hominins. processes that produce these out- tion histories, in a sense to construct comes—that is, the cognitive under- phylogenies of species and popula- Culture and pinnings. Most recent approaches tions (cultures, in other words). Stone have concentrated on the latter or, in tools were, in effect, treated as popu- Paleoanthropology other words, trying to get into the lation markers. This may be consid- There are two reasons why both minds of extinct species and popula- ered the phylogenetic and historical evolution and paleoanthropology are tions. This can only be done in terms approach. On the other hand, stone central to any discussion of culture. of correlates. Most definitions of cul- tools can be and have been interpreted The first is that the distinction be- ture involve three core elements: those as adaptive markers, often with little tween humans and other species is associated with learning, its depth or no phylogenetic signal, because usually drawn in some way around and extent, or the ability to acquire they are endlessly thrown up conver- the concept of culture—put simply, new information independent of a gently by the demands of the environ- we have it and they do not. Chimpan- tightly constrained genetic basis; ment and social organization, which zees chipping away at the margins of those associated with social organiza- thus reflect variability in behavioral tool making or grappling with the ru- tion and complexity; and those asso- response. This can be termed the diments of American sign language do ciated with symbolic thought, both its adaptive function approach. not really change this state of affairs. underlying cognitive basis and its By and large, these two approaches Given the fact that humans must have communication. In addition to these have been seen as alternatives, and to evolved from an acultural organism to core elements is the extent to which be in conflict with one another.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Excavation of a Chimpanzee Stone Tool Site in the African Rainforest Julio Mercader Et Al
    R EPORTS References and Notes (VR) to M.J.W. The Greenland Home Rule Govern- support, and comments. ment generously provided permission to conduct 1. S. J. Mojzsis et al., Nature 384, 55 (1996). Supporting Online Material studies and collect samples from protected out- 2. A. P. Nutman, S. J. Mojzsis, C. R. L. Friend, Geochim. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/ crops on Akilia. We also thank S. Moorbath, V. L. Cosmochim. Acta. 61, 2475 (1997). 5572/1448/DC1 Pease, L. L. S¿rensen, G. M. Young, B. S. Kamber, M. 3. S. J. Mojzsis, T. M. Harrison, Geol. Soc. Am. Today 10, table S1 1 (2000). Rosing, J. M. Hanchar, J. M. Bailey, R. Tracy, J. F. 4. C. F. Chyba, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 57, 3351 Lewis, and G. Goodfriend for helpful discussions, 29 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002 (1993). 5. K. A. Maher, D. J. Stevenson, Nature 331, 612 (1988). 6. A. P. Nutman et al., Precambrian Res. 78, 1 (1996). 7. M. J. Whitehouse, B. S. Kamber, S. Moorbath, Chem. Excavation of a Chimpanzee Geol. 160, 201 (1999). 8. B. S. Kamber, S. Moorbath, Chem. Geol. 150,19 (1998). Stone Tool Site in the African 9. M. J. Whitehouse, B. S. Kamber, S. Moorbath, Chem. Geol. 175, 201 (2001). 10. V. R. McGregor, B. Mason, Am. Mineral. 62, 887 Rainforest (1977). 1 1 2 11. W. L. Griffin, V. R. McGregor, A. Nutman, P. N. Taylor, Julio Mercader, * Melissa Panger, Christophe Boesch D. Bridgwater, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 50,59 (1980). 12. J. S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Lithic Technology} Workshops} and Chipping Stations in the Philippines
    Prehistoric Lithic Technology} Workshops} and Chipping Stations in the Philippines D. KYLE LATINIS THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS represent an important area for research of problems concerning prehistoric archaeology in Southeast Asia. These insular areas, located east of the biogeographic boundary known as Huxley's line, include a variety of tropical environments. These islands remained detached from the continental portion of Southeast Asia throughout the Pleistocene and Holocene. Archaeolog­ ical research has documented human occupation and adaptation from at least the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene within these islands. Unfortunately, relatively little intensive prehistoric archaeological research has been undertaken in the Philippines compared to some areas in mainland South­ east Asia, Oceania, and Australia. Warren Peterson's dissertation (1974) focused on a series of sites in northern Luzon and represents one of the foundation stud­ ies in the Philippines for modern archaeology. Peterson's work has often been cited and his conclusions used for the development of models concerning prehis­ tory in the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Peterson's research was conducted during a period when behavioral reconstruc­ tions from site assemblage analyses were prominent in archaeological research. Specifically, Peterson attempted behavioral reconstruction from the analysis of stone tools from the Busibus/Pintu site in northern Luzon, Philippines. A reanal­ ysis of the entire Busibus/Pintu lithic assemblage has revealed problems with Peterson's initial analysis and interpretation of this site-problems that will be addressed in this paper. Lithic technology, stone tool manufacture, and selection and reduction strategies will also be explored. Finally, new interpretations of the nature of the lithic assemblage and site activities at Busibus/Pintu rock shelter will be provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: a Guide John J
    Stone Tools in the Paleolithic and Neolithic Near East: A Guide John J. Shea New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, 408 pp. (hardback), $104.99. ISBN-13: 978-1-107-00698-0. Reviewed by DEBORAH I. OLSZEWSKI Department of Anthropology, Penn Museum, 3260 South Street, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; [email protected] n reading the Preface and Introduction to Shea’s book Stone Age Prehistory,” and lists the origins of genus Homo Iwhere he discusses why he wrote this volume on Near in the Lower Paleolithic period, which is incorrect both Eastern stone tools, I had to smile because his experience as temporally and geographically (Homo ergaster appearing ca a graduate student was analogous to mine. Learning about 1.8 Mya in Africa, or Homo habilis ca 2.5 Mya in Africa, if one stone tools in this world region was not easy because no accepts this hominin as sufficiently derived as to belong to single typology had been developed, at least in the sense genus Homo). And the same is true in this table for several of a widely accepted set of terminology that could be ap- other major evolutionary events for which our earliest evi- plied to the Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic there, or even the dence is African rather than Levantine. Neolithic period. In retrospect, it is somewhat surprising For Chapter 2 (Lithics Basics), the reader is immedi- that in the several decades since no one, until this book by ately immersed in how stone fractures (using terminol- Shea, undertook producing a compendium of information ogy from mechanics), is abraded, and is knapped.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Raw Material Differences in Stone Tool Shape Variation: an Experimental Assessment
    Journal of Archaeological Science 49 (2014) 472e487 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment * Metin I. Eren a, b, , Christopher I. Roos c, Brett A. Story d, Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel e, Stephen J. Lycett e a Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA b Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH 44106-1767, USA c Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA d Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA e Department of Anthropology, University at Buffalo SUNY, 380 MFAC-Ellicott Complex, Buffalo, NY 14261-0005, USA article info abstract Article history: Lithic raw material differences are widely assumed to be a major determining factor of differences in Received 27 March 2014 stone tool morphology seen across archaeological sites, but the security of this assumption remains Received in revised form largely untested. Two different sets of raw material properties are thought to influence artifact form. The 29 May 2014 first set is internal, and related to mechanical flaking properties. The second set is external, namely the Accepted 30 May 2014 form (size, shape, presence of cortex) of the initial nodule or blank from which flakes are struck. We Available online 12 June 2014 conducted a replication experiment designed to determine whether handaxe morphology was influ- enced by raw materials of demonstrably different internal and external properties: flint, basalt, and Keywords: “ ” Raw material obsidian.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Axe Technology in Neolithic South India: New Evidence from the Sanganakallu-Kupgal Region) Mideastern Karnataka
    Stone Axe Technology in Neolithic South India: New Evidence from the Sanganakallu-Kupgal Region) Mideastern Karnataka ADAM BRUMM, NICOLE BOIVIN, RAVI KORISETTAR, JINU KOSHY, AND PAULA WHITTAKER THE TRANSITION TO AGRICULTURE-and to settled village life-occurred at dif­ ferent times in various parts of the world. Even within the Indian subcontinent, the Neolithic transition did not occur simultaneously across the entire region; rather, Neolithic "pockets" developed at different moments in certain key areas within the subcontinent. One such area is the South Deccan Plateau in South India, where the third millennium B.C. saw the development ofa novel Neolithic way of life that differed in crucial ways from Neolithic lifeways in other parts of the subcontinent (Allchin 1963). This tradition was marked by a particular focus on cattle and by the appearance of specific, perhaps ritual practices that featured the burning of large quantities of cow dung and the resultant creation of ash­ mounds in the landscape (Allchin 1963; Boivin 2004). This unique Neolithic tra­ dition, while still relatively poorly understood compared to Neolithic cultures in Europe and the Near East, has much to offer prehistorians attempting to under­ stand the changes that led to and accompanied domestication and sedentarization. It also has much to offer South Asian scholars who wish to gain a better apprecia­ tion of the changes that led to complexity, political economy, and state-level societies in South India (Boivin et al. 2005; Fuller et al. forthcoming). One key requirement for such studies is a better understanding of the material culture changes that attended the Neolithic transition, as well as the subsequent transition from the Neolithic to the Megalithic or Iron Age (see Table 1 for period designa­ tions and chronology).
    [Show full text]
  • Earliest Known Oldowan Artifacts at 2.58 Ma from Ledi-Geraru
    Earliest known Oldowan artifacts at >2.58 Ma from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, highlight early technological diversity David R. Brauna,b,1, Vera Aldeiasb,c, Will Archerb,d, J Ramon Arrowsmithe, Niguss Barakif, Christopher J. Campisanog, Alan L. Deinoh, Erin N. DiMaggioi, Guillaume Dupont-Nivetj,k, Blade Engdal, David A. Fearye, Dominique I. Garelloe, Zenash Kerfelewl, Shannon P. McPherronb, David B. Pattersona,m, Jonathan S. Reevesa, Jessica C. Thompsonn, and Kaye E. Reedg aCenter for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052; bDepartment of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103 Leipzig, Germany; cInterdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behaviour, University of Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal; dArchaeology Department, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa; eSchool of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287; fDepartment of Archaeology and Heritage Management, Main Campus, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; gInstitute of Human Origins, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287; hBerkeley Geochronology Center, Berkeley, CA 94709; iDepartment of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; jCNRS, Géosciences Rennes–UMR 6118, University of Rennes, F-35000 Rennes, France; kDepartment of Earth and Environmental Science, Postdam University, 14476 Potsdam-Golm,
    [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]
  • 3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya
    ARTICLE doi:10.1038/nature14464 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya Sonia Harmand1,2,3, Jason E. Lewis1,3,4, Craig S. Feibel3,4,5, Christopher J. Lepre3,5,6, Sandrine Prat3,7, Arnaud Lenoble3,8, Xavier Boe¨s3,7, Rhonda L. Quinn3,5,9, Michel Brenet8,10, Adrian Arroyo2, Nicholas Taylor2,3, Sophie Cle´ment3,11, Guillaume Daver12, Jean-Philip Brugal3,13, Louise Leakey1, Richard A. Mortlock5, James D. Wright5, Sammy Lokorodi3, Christopher Kirwa3,14, Dennis V. Kent5,6 &He´le`ne Roche2,3 Human evolutionary scholars have long supposed that the earliest stone tools were made by the genus Homo and that this technological development was directly linked to climate change and the spread of savannah grasslands. New fieldwork in West Turkana, Kenya, has identified evidence of much earlier hominin technological behaviour. We report the discovery of Lomekwi 3, a 3.3-million-year-old archaeological site where in situ stone artefacts occur in spatio- temporal association with Pliocene hominin fossils in a wooded palaeoenvironment. The Lomekwi 3 knappers, with a developing understanding of stone’s fracture properties, combined core reduction with battering activities. Given the implications of the Lomekwi 3 assemblage for models aiming to converge environmental change, hominin evolution and technological origins, we propose for it the name ‘Lomekwian’, which predates the Oldowan by 700,000 years and marks a new beginning to the known archaeological record. Conventional wisdom in human evolutionary studies has assumed (3.44–2.53 Ma) of the Nachukui Formation (west of Lake Turkana, that the origins of hominin sharp-edged stone tool production were northern Kenya; Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Shea, J. J. 2017. Stone Tools in Human Evolution: Behavioural Differences Among Technological Primates
    Shea, J. J. 2017. Stone Tools in Human Evolution: behavioural differences among technological primates. New York: Cambridge University Press, Paperback: 978-1-107- 55493-1, 236 pages, 51 figs b/w, 26 tables. Fiona Coward ([email protected]) This book represents an ambitious attempt to re-frame the interpretation of stone tools as evidence for hominin evolution. I have every sympathy for Shea’s reasons for writing the book, as outlined in the Introduction: as he notes, many palaeoanthropologists demonstrate a curious lack of interest in the evidence for human origins available from the study of stone tools – or indeed, in my own experience, almost any archaeological evidence, despite the fact that such evidence is far more prevalent than hominin fossils, and the only direct evidence for the behaviour of early hominins. For this reason, Shea has explicitly aimed this volume not so much at archaeologists – who despite Shea’s efforts at a radical shake-up of stone tool analysis will probably find much of the content here very familiar – but primarily at physical anthropologists, in an attempt to convince them of the worth of evidence from stone tools for studying human origins. However, with that in mind it seems odd that the opening sections of the book are in fact more of an outlining of the negatives of the terminology and current chronological framework within which stone tools are studied by archaeologists, which while probably providing a reasonable explanation for why non-archaeologists find this material so easy to ignore, strikes me as unlikely to do much to convince them.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Age Glossary
    Stone Age glossary Adze A cutting tool shaped like an axe, used for trimming and shaping timber. Anthropology The study of humans, and how they live. Anthropomorphic Shaped like a person. See also figurine. Ard A type of simple plough that people used in the Neolithic. Archaeology The study of the human past from the physical remains they left behind. Archaeologist Someone who studies the human past by recovering and examining the physical remains left behind by people. Archaeologists do not only work on excavations but also in museums, archives, laboratories, local councils, universities, and heritage organisations. Artefact An object that has been made by humans, usually small enough to be carried (so not monuments or houses!). Examples are tools, weapons, cooking equipment, figurines, and jewellery. Awl A long pointy tool used for punching holes in things such as leather or marking wood. Prehistoric awls were often made of bone or antler. Barrow A mound of earth and stones that covers one or more burials. Blade (stone tool) A long narrow flake with sharp edges, that is at least twice as long as it is broad. Burin (stone tool) A pointed tool of flint or stone with a very sharp edge that can be used to work bone, antler, ivory and wood. Causewayed enclosure A type of Early Neolithic monument, made up of a large round ditch and many smaller circles of ditches inside it. We think they were places where people gathered for large feasts. Ceramic Something made of fired clay, for example pottery, figurines, tiles, or beads. Clan A group of people that are bound together by family or friendship, or necessity.
    [Show full text]
  • Oldowan, Acheulean, Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic Stone Tools
    The Invention of Stone Tools : Oldowan, Acheulean, Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic Stone Tools by Rochelle Forrester Copyright © 2020 Rochelle Forrester All Rights Reserved The moral right of the author has been asserted Anyone may reproduce all or any part of this paper without the permission of the author so long as a full acknowledgement of the source of the reproduced material is made. Third Edition Published 28 January 2020 Preface This paper was written in order to examine the order of discovery of significant developments in the history of humankind. It is part of my efforts to put the study of social and cultural history and social change on a scientific basis capable of rational analysis and understanding. This has resulted in a hard copy book How Change Happens: A Theory of Philosophy of History, Social Change and Cultural ​ Evolution and a website How Change Happens Rochelle Forrester’s Social Change, Cultural Evolution ​ ​ and Philosophy of History website. There are also philosophy of history papers such as The Course of ​ ​ History, The Scientific Study of History, Guttman Scale Analysis and its use to explain Cultural ​ ​ ​ ​ Evolution and Social Change and the Philosophy of History and papers on Academia.edu, Figshare, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Humanities Commons, Mendeley, Open Science Framework, Orcid, Phil Papers, SocArXiv, Social ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Science Research Network, Vixra and Zenodo websites. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ This paper is part of a series on the History of Science and Technology. Other papers in the series are The Invention
    [Show full text]
  • THE OLDOWAN: Case Studies Into the Earliest Stone Age Nicholas Toth and Kathy Schick, Editors
    stone age institute publication series Series Editors Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth Stone Age Institute Gosport, Indiana and Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Number 1. THE OLDOWAN: Case Studies into the Earliest Stone Age Nicholas Toth and Kathy Schick, editors Number 2. BREATHING LIFE INTO FOSSILS: Taphonomic Studies in Honor of C.K. (Bob) Brain Travis Rayne Pickering, Kathy Schick, and Nicholas Toth, editors Number 3. THE CUTTING EDGE: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Human Origins Kathy Schick, and Nicholas Toth, editors Number 4. THE HUMAN BRAIN EVOLVING: Paleoneurological Studies in Honor of Ralph L. Holloway Douglas Broadfield, Michael Yuan, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth, editors STONE AGE INSTITUTE PUBLICATION SERIES NUMBER 1 THE OLDOWAN: Case Studies Into the Earliest Stone Age Edited by Nicholas Toth and Kathy Schick Stone Age Institute Press · www.stoneageinstitute.org 1392 W. Dittemore Road · Gosport, IN 47433 COVER PHOTOS Front, clockwise from upper left: 1) Excavation at Ain Hanech, Algeria (courtesy of Mohamed Sahnouni). 2) Kanzi, a bonobo (‘pygmy chimpanzee’) fl akes a chopper-core by hard-hammer percussion (courtesy Great Ape Trust). 3) Experimental Oldowan fl aking (Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth). 4) Scanning electron micrograph of prehistoric cut-marks from a stone tool on a mammal limb shaft fragment (Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth). 5) Kinesiological data from Oldowan fl aking (courtesy of Jesus Dapena). 6) Positron emission tomography of brain activity during Oldowan fl aking (courtesy of Dietrich Stout). 7) Experimental processing of elephant carcass with Oldowan fl akes (the animal died of natural causes). (Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth). 8) Reconstructed cranium of Australopithecus garhi.
    [Show full text]