DOCSLIB.ORG

An Early Bone Tool Industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origins of Modern Huma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Early Bone Tool Industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origins of Modern Huma Christopher S. An early bone tool industry from the Henshilwood Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Department of Anthropology, Africa: implications for the origins of SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony modern human behaviour, symbolism and Brook, NY 11794-4364, U.S.A. & South African language Museum (Iziko Museums of Cape Town), Queen Victoria Twenty-eight bone tools were recovered in situ from ca. 70 ka year old Street, Cape Town, 8000, Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave between 1992 and 2000. South Africa. E-mail: These tools are securely provenienced and are the largest collection to [email protected] come from a single African Middle Stone Age site. Detailed analyses show that tool production methods follow a sequence of deliberate technical choices starting with blank production, the use of various Francesco d’Errico shaping methods and the final finishing of the artefact to produce Institut de Prehistoire at de ‘‘awls’’ and ‘‘projectile points’’. Tool production processes in the Geologie du Quaternaire, Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave conform to generally accepted UMR 5808 of the CNRS, descriptions of ‘‘formal’’ techniques of bone tool manufacture. Com- Av. des Facultes, 33405, parisons with similar bone tools from the Later Stone Age at Blombos Talence, France. E-mail: Cave, other Cape sites and ethnographic collections show that [email protected] although shaping methods are different, the planning and execution of bone tool manufacture in the Middle Stone Age is consistent with Curtis W. Marean that in the late Holocene. Institute of Human Origins, The bone tool collection from Blombos Cave is remarkable Department of Anthropology, because bone tools are rarely found in African Middle or Later Stone Arizona State University, Age sites before ca. 25 ka. Scarcity of early bone tools is cited as one PO Box 872402, Tempe, AZ strand of evidence supporting models for nonmodern behaviour 85287-2402, U.S.A. E-mail: linked to a lack of modern technological or cognitive capacity before [email protected] ca. 50 ka. Bone artefacts are a regular feature in European sites after ca. 40 ka, are closely associated with the arrival of anatomically Richard G. Milo modern humans and are a key behavioural marker of the Upper Department of Geography, Palaeolithic ‘‘symbolic explosion’’ linked to the evolution of modern Economics and Anthropology, behaviour. Chicago State University, Taken together with recent finds from Klasies River, Katanda and 9501 S. King Drive, Chicago, other African Middle Stone Age sites the Blombos Cave evidence for IL 60628-1598, U.S.A. formal bone working, deliberate engraving on ochre, production of E-mail: [email protected] finely made bifacial points and sophisticated subsistence strategies is turning the tide in favour of models positing behavioural modernity in Africa at a time far earlier than previously accepted. Royden Yates 2001 Academic Press South African Museum (Iziko Museums of Cape Town), Queen Victoria Street, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected] Received 19 April 2001 Revision received 29 June 2001 and accepted 19 July 2001 Keywords: Middle Stone Age, bone tools, symbolism, Journal of Human Evolution (2001) 41, 631–678 behaviour, South Africa, doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0515 Blombos Cave. Available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on 0047–2484/01/120631+48$35.00/0 2001 Academic Press 632 . ET AL. Introduction In this paper we present an analysis of the largest known MSA bone tool collection By around the early 1990s there was a excavated from Blombos Cave (BBC), general assumption that African Middle South Africa. In 1992 a single worked and Stone Age people, like their Middle Palaeo- polished bone point was recovered during lithic counterparts, did not make bone tools preliminary excavation of the MSA levels (Clarke, 1989; Thackeray, 1992), possibly dated at ca. 70 ka (Henshilwood et al., because they did not have the mental ca- 2001; and see below). Expanded exca- pacity (e.g. Klein, 1989b; for a contra view vations in 1997 produced 14 MSA bone see Mellars & Stringer, 1989). This assump- tools (Henshilwood & Sealy, 1997), and tion was largely based on the infrequency of between 1998–2000 13 more were recov- formal bone tool finds from Middle Stone ered. All the BBC MSA bone tools show Age (MSA) contexts in Africa prior to evidence of deliberate shaping to create tools 1990 (see Clark et al., 1950; Clark, 1959; of various sizes and forms; most are pol- Wendorf & Schild, 1974; Marks, 1968; ished, either intentionally or from use-wear. Beaumont et al., 1978; Singer & Wymer, The BBC bone tool collection clearly dem- 1982; Mason, 1988) and because the dating onstrates that MSA people had the capacity and secure context of these few finds was to perceive bone as a raw material, under- open to question (e.g. Volman, 1984; Singer stand its working properties and fashion it as & Wymer, 1982; Klein, 1989b). required using a variety of techniques to In Eurasia shaped bone tools are virtually produce shaped (formal) artefacts for unknown at sites pre-dating 40 ka but diverse applications. are fairly common in the region after this date (Hahn, 1988; Camps-Fabrer, 1988; Modern human behaviour and bone Mellars, 1989b; Knecht, 1993; Hahn, 1995; tools Otte, 1995; Oliva, 1995; d’Errico et al., 1998; Christensen, 1999; d’Errico & Current and past debate over the origins and Laroulandie, 2000; Villa & d’Errico, 2001). development of bone tool technology are It seemed, from the evidence, that bone tool part of a far larger and equally heated technology occurred first in Eurasia and was debate—the origins of modern human only adopted or developed in Africa at a behaviour. Genetic and fossil evidence much later date. Bone tools only became strongly suggests anatomically modern a regular feature at African sites in the Later humans, Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa at Stone Age (LSA) post ca. 25 ka (for a fuller ca. 300–150 ka and by ca. 35–30 ka were discussion see McBrearty & Brooks, 2000). effectively established in all areas of the Old The discovery in the early 1990s of World (Vigilant et al., 1991; Templeton, barbed and unbarbed bone points at the 1992; Mellars, 1993; Stringer, 1993; Katanda sites in the Semliki Valley, D.R. Stoneking et al., 1993; Deacon, 1993, Congo, dated at ca. 75 ka (Yellen et al., 1998b; Foley, 1998; Zilha˜o&d’Errico, 1995; Brooks et al., 1995; McBrearty 1999; but for a contra view see Wolpoff et al., & Brooks, 2000; Feathers & Migliorini, 1984; Wolpoff, 1989, 1996). Correlating 2001), generated considerable debate over anatomical with behavioural modernity in their actual age (Ambrose, 1998) and Africa is more problematic. Due, in part, to provenience (Klein, 1999; see McBrearty & the lack of reliable and/or dated archaeologi- Brooks for a fuller discussion), but are the cal evidence from most African Mid and first major find to provide strong evidence Late Pleistocene sites, some researchers for early bone working in Africa. consider the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) to 633 Upper Palaeolithic (UP) transition in in south-east Africa (Foley & Lahr, Eurasia the benchmark for constructing 1997), the Aterian in North Africa (Hublin, ‘‘modern’’ behavioural models (Klein, 1993; Hajraoui, 1994) and evidence 1989a,b, 1994b, 1995; Mellars, 1989a,b, from Namibian sites (Vogelsang, 1996). 1991, 1993, 1996; Ambrose & Lorenz, Adherents or near adherents to early African 1990; Ambrose, 1998). The tenets of these ‘‘modern’’ type behaviour models have essentially eurocentric models is that early diverse views on the role, or presence vs. ‘‘modern’’ behaviour—the ‘‘behavioural absence, of bone tools in the MSA. Clark revolution’’—equates with H. sapiens and (1989) believes MSA people had the mental the MP–UP transition at ca. 40–30 ka and capacity for bone working but preferred that the African equivalent is the MSA/LSA wood as it is easier to work. Thackeray’s transition at ca. 50–40 ka (Ambrose, 1998; (1992) observation is that bone was simply Klein, 1989a,b, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2000). not an important source of raw material in Anatomically modern humans in Africa and the MSA. Whether important or not, West Asia during the MSA/MP are regarded McBrearty & Brooks (2000) argue that by some researchers as behaviourally non- carving and polishing bone was not beyond modern until the early LSA/UP at ca. 50– the capabilities of the maker of a levallois 40 ka (Binford, 1984; Klein, 1989a,b, 1992, flake or, in our opinion, a Still Bay bifacially 1994b, 1995; Ambrose & Lorenz, 1990; worked stone point. Ambrose, 1998). Klein (1999, 2000) argues What is the evidence for bone technology further that the shift to fully modern behav- in the African MSA or earlier? Shaft frag- iour at ca. 50–40 ka is linked to an advan- ments recovered from Pliocene levels at tageous genetic mutation. The absence or Swartkrans, Sterkfontein and Driemolen presence of formal bone tools is frequently (Brain & Shipman, 1993; Keyser et al., cited as a marker for assessing modern 2000) show wear consistent with digging behaviour during the MP/UP transition termite mounds (Backwell & d’Errico, (Mellars, 1989a,b, 1991, 1993) and the 2001) but this is best described as ad hoc African MSA (Klein, 1989a,b, 1992, bone use. A bone point and utilized ivory 1994b, 1995; Ambrose, 1998). Interest- pieces come from the Kabwe site (Clark ingly, Neanderthals are known to have et al., 1950) but their age and association manufactured bone tools in Eurasia during with faunal and hominid remains is ques- the late MP (d’Errico et al., 1998). tionable (McBrearty & Brooks, 2000). A In contrast to the above ‘‘linear’’, tem- bone point, purportedly from the lowest porally restricted models, proponents of a HP levels at Klasies River (KR) dated at ‘‘mosaic’’ approach suggest elements indica- ca.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Further Evidence for Bow Hunting and Its Implications More Than 60 000
    1 Further evidence for bow hunting and its implications more than 60 000 2 years ago: results of a use-trace analysis of the bone point from Klasies River 3 Main site, South Africa. 4 5 Justin Bradfield1*, Marlize Lombard1, Jerome Reynard2, Sarah Wurz2,3 6 1. Palaeo-Research Institute, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006, 7 Johannesburg, South Africa 8 2. School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Science, University of the 9 Witwatersrand 10 3. SFF Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapiensCE), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 11 * [email protected] 12 13 14 15 Abstract 16 The bone point (SAM 42160) from >60 ka deposits at Klasies River Main Site, South Africa, is 17 reassessed. We clarify the stratigraphic integrity of SAM 42160 and confirm its Middle Stone 18 Age provenience. We find evidence that indicates the point was hafted and partially coated 19 in an adhesive substance. Internal fractures are consistent with stresses occasioned by high- 20 velocity, longitudinal impact. SAM 42160, like its roughly contemporaneous counterpart, 21 farther north at Sibudu Cave, likely functioned as a hafted arrowhead. We highlight a 22 growing body of evidence for bow hunting at this early period and explore what the 23 implications of bow-and-arrow technology might reveal about the cognition of Middle Stone 24 Age people who were able to conceive, construct and use it. 25 26 Keywords: arrowhead; bone point; bow hunting; traceology; cognition, palaeo-neurology; 27 symbiotic technology 28 29 30 31 1. Introduction 32 Multiple lines of evidence have been mounting over the last decade to support bow hunting 33 in South Africa before 60 ka.
    [Show full text]
  • The Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the Beginnings of Regional Identity
    Journal of Worm Prehistory, Vol. 2, No. 3. 1988 The Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the Beginnings of Regional Identity J. Desmond Clark ~ The history of research into the Middle Stone Age of East Africa and the present state of knowledge of this time period is examined for the region as a whole, with special reference to paleoenvironments. The known MSA sites and occurrences are discussed region by region and attempts are made to fit them into a more precise chronological framework and to assess their cultural affinities. The conclusion is reached that the Middle Stone Age lasted for some 150,000 years but considerably more systematic and in-depth research is needed into this time period, which is now perceived as of great significance since it appears to span the time of the evolution of anatomically Modern humans in the continent, perhaps in Last Africa. KEY WORDS: Middle Stone Age; Sangoan/Lupemban; long chronology; Archaic Homo sapiens; Modern H. sapiens. • . when we eventually find the skulls of the makers of the African Mousterian they will prove to be of non-Homo sapiens type, although probably not of Neanderthal type, but merely an allied race of Homo rhodesiensis. The partial exception.., of the Stillbay culture group is therefore explicable on the grounds that Homo sapiens influence was already at work. (Leakey, 1931, p. 326) The other view is that the cradle of the Aurignacian races lies hidden somewhere in the Sahara area, probably in the south-east, and that an early wave of movement carried one branch of the stock via Somaliland and the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb into Arabia, and thence to some unknown secondary centre of distribution in Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Bone Tool
    Chapter 18 Using the Bone Tool The BONE TOOL allows you to set hinges either within an object or between a group of objects. It can be applied to create human movements in arms and legs, robotic arm movements, crane operations, etc. The Bone Tool Basics To illustrate the basics of the BONE TOOL, a simple shape will be converted into an arm. A Drawing the Shape 1 Load Adobe Animate or close the current files and start a FULL HD preset file. © Guided Computer Tutorials 2021 18-1 Learning Adobe Animate CC B Applying the Bone Tool 1 Press CTRL+ or COMMAND+ to zoom the view to 200%. 3 When you release the mouse button the first bone is created. NOTE: This first section will represent a bone from the shoulder to the elbow. 5 Release the mouse button to create the second bone. NOTE: This second section will represent a bone from the elbow to the wrist. 18-2 © Guided Computer Tutorials 2021 Using the Bone Tool 18 NOTE: All the bone sections are moved into the ARMATURE layer. C Using the Bone Links The bone sections have set a rotation joint at the left of the shape (red diamond shape) and hinges (or joints) at the centre and near the right of the shape. 1 Press CTRL- or COMMAND- to return the view to 100%. NOTE: When the mouse pointer is over a joint or bone that can be moved, a bone symbol is added to the pointer. © Guided Computer Tutorials 2021 18-3 Learning Adobe Animate CC D The Pin Option The PIN option allows you to fix the position of a bone and prevent it from moving.
    [Show full text]
  • Adobe Animate Cc Classroom in a Book (2018 Release) 301
    NATURAL AND CHARACTER 9 ANIMATION Lesson Overview In this lesson, you’ll learn how to do the following: • Use the Bone tool to build armatures (skeletons) of movie clips • Use the Bone tool to build armatures of shapes • Animate natural motion of armatures using inverse kinematics • Constrain and pin the armature joints • Edit the position of armature bones and joints • Refine shape deformations with the Bind tool • Simulate physics with the Spring feature • Adjust the speed setting to add a sense of weight to armatures This lesson will take about one and a half hours to complete. Please log in to your account on peachpit.com to download the lesson files for this chap- ter, or go to the Getting Started section at the beginning of this book and follow the instructions under “Accessing the Lesson Files and Web Edition.” 298 From the Library of Alvaro Alvarez You can easily create complex and natural motion with articulations—joints between linked objects and within shapes—by using the Bone tool for animation in a process called inverse kinematics . 299 From the Library of Alvaro Alvarez Getting Started You’ll start the lesson by viewing the animated walking monkey that you’ll create as you learn about natural motion in Adobe Animate CC. 1 Double-click the 09End.html file in the Lesson09/09End folder to play the animation. The animation depicts a cartoon monkey walking in an endless cycle with a scrolling motion in the background. His arms and legs swing naturally, and his tail curls and unfurls naturally and smoothly.
    [Show full text]
  • The Janus-Faced Dilemma of Rock Art Heritage
    The Janus-faced dilemma of rock art heritage management in Europe: a double dialectic process between conservation and public outreach, transmission and exclusion Mélanie Duval, Christophe Gauchon To cite this version: Mélanie Duval, Christophe Gauchon. The Janus-faced dilemma of rock art heritage management in Europe: a double dialectic process between conservation and public outreach, transmission and exclusion. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, Taylor & Francis, In press, 10.1080/13505033.2020.1860329. hal-03078965 HAL Id: hal-03078965 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03078965 Submitted on 21 Feb 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Duval Mélanie, Gauchon Christophe, 2021. The Janus-faced dilemma of rock art heritage management in Europe: a double dialectic process between conservation and public outreach, transmission and exclusion, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2020.1860329 Authors: Mélanie Duval and Christophe Gauchon Mélanie Duval: *Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA), Université Savoie Mont Blanc (USMB), CNRS, Environnements, Dynamics and Territories of Mountains (EDYTEM), Chambéry, France; * Rock Art Research Institute GAES, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Christophe Gauchon: *Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA), Université Savoie Mont Blanc (USMB), CNRS, Environnements, Dynamics and Territories of Mountains (EDYTEM), Chambéry, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Many books were read and researched in the compilation of Binford, L. R, 1983, Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology: New York. Binford, L. R, and Binford, S. R (eds.), 1968, New Perspectives in American Museum of Natural History, 1993, The First Humans. Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Braidwood, R 1.,1960, Archaeologists and What They Do. Franklin American Museum of Natural History, 1993, People of the Stone Watts, New York. Age. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Branigan, Keith (ed.), 1982, The Atlas ofArchaeology. St. Martin's, American Museum of Natural History, 1994, New World and Pacific New York. Civilizations. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Bray, w., and Tump, D., 1972, Penguin Dictionary ofArchaeology. American Museum of Natural History, 1994, Old World Civiliza­ Penguin, New York. tions. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Brennan, L., 1973, Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. Stackpole Ashmore, w., and Sharer, R. J., 1988, Discovering Our Past: A Brief Books, Harrisburg, PA. Introduction to Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. Broderick, M., and Morton, A. A., 1924, A Concise Dictionary of Atkinson, R J. C., 1985, Field Archaeology, 2d ed. Hyperion, New Egyptian Archaeology. Ares Publishers, Chicago. York. Brothwell, D., 1963, Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment Bacon, E. (ed.), 1976, The Great Archaeologists. Bobbs-Merrill, and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains. British Museum, London. New York. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.), 1969, Science in Archaeology, Bahn, P., 1993, Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. ABC-CLIO, 2d ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Santa Barbara, CA. Budge, E. A. Wallis, 1929, The Rosetta Stone. Dover, New York. Bahn, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Evidence of Stone Tool Use in Bone Working Activities at Qesem Cave, Israel
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Early evidence of stone tool use in bone working activities at Qesem Cave, Israel Received: 15 July 2016 Andrea Zupancich1, Stella Nunziante-Cesaro2, Ruth Blasco1,3, Jordi Rosell4,5, Accepted: 03 October 2016 Emanuela Cristiani6, Flavia Venditti7, Cristina Lemorini7, Ran Barkai1 & Avi Gopher1 Published: 25 November 2016 For a long while, the controversy surrounding several bone tools coming from pre-Upper Palaeolithic contexts favoured the view of Homo sapiens as the only species of the genus Homo capable of modifying animal bones into specialised tools. However, evidence such as South African Early Stone Age modified bones, European Lower Palaeolithic flaked bone tools, along with Middle and Late Pleistocene bone retouchers, led to a re-evaluation of the conception of Homo sapiens as the exclusive manufacturer of specialised bone tools. The evidence presented herein include use wear and bone residues identified on two flint scrapers as well as a sawing mark on a fallow deer tibia, not associated with butchering activities. Dated to more than 300 kya, the evidence here presented is among the earliest related to tool-assisted bone working intended for non-dietary purposes, and contributes to the debate over the recognition of bone working as a much older behaviour than previously thought. The results of this study come from the application of a combined methodological approach, comprising use wear analysis, residue analysis, and taphonomy. This approach allowed for the retrieval of both direct and indirect evidence of tool-assisted bone working, at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Qesem Cave (Israel). Homo sapiens’ supposedly exclusive manufacture of specialised tools made from modified animal bones, along with other aspects such as art and specialised hunting weapons, has led to the definition of a clear behavioural and cognitive boundary between H.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts of Reports and Posters
    Abstracts of Reports and Posters Amira Adaileh The Magdalenian site of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld The open air site of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld is located in Sachsen-Anhalt, Eastern Germany. It was discov- ered in the mid 1950´s in the immediate vicinity of the famous Magdalenian site of Saaleck. Since that time, archaeologists collected over 2000 lithic artifacts during systematical surveys. The technological and typological analyses of the lithic artifacts confirmed the assignment of Bad Kösen-Lengefeld to a late Magdalenian. Furthermore, the investigation of the surface collections brought forward information about the character of this camp site, the duration of its occupation and the pattern of raw material procure- ment. The fact that Bad Kösen-Lengefeld is located in a region with more than 100 Magdalenian sites fostered a comparison of the lithic inventory with other Magdalenian assemblages. Thus, allowing to spec- ify the position of the Lengefeld collection within the chorological context of the Magdalenian in Eastern Germany. Jehanne Affolter, Ludovic Mevel Raw material circulation in northern french alps and Jura during lateglacial interstadial : method, new data and paleohistoric implication Since fifteen years the study of the characterization and origin of flint resources used by Magdalenian and Azilian groups in northern French Alps and Jura have received significant research work. Diverse and well distributed spatially, some of these resources were used and disseminated throughout the late Upper Paleolithic. Which changes do we observe during the Magdalenian then for the Azilian? The results of petrographic analysis and techno-economic analysis to several archaeological sites allow us to assess dia- chronic changes in economic behavior of these people and discuss the significance of these results.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesolithic Bone Tools of South-West Europe : the Example of the French Site of Le Cuzoul De Gramat Benjamin Marquebielle
    Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat Benjamin Marquebielle To cite this version: Benjamin Marquebielle. Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat. 7th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, Sep 2009, Wroclaw, Poland. hal-01990262 HAL Id: hal-01990262 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01990262 Submitted on 11 Feb 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Written in Bones Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains edited by Justyna Baron Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska Uniwersytet Wrocławski Instytut Archeologii Wrocław 2011 InstItute of ArchAeology, unIversIty of Wrocław, 2011 Editors Justyna Baron and Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska Reviewers Arkadiusz Marciniak, Jarosław Wilczyński Layout Janusz M. szafran, Jarosław Michalak Cover Justyna Baron © Institute of Archaeology, university of Wrocław and individual authors 2011 IsBn 978-83-61416-64-7 Wrocławska Drukarnia naukowa PAN im. stanisława Kulczyńskiego sp. z o.o. 53-505 Wrocław, ul. lelewela 4 Contents Preface . 5 Methods and methodology steven P. Ashby The Language of the Combmaker: interpreting complexity in Viking-Age Industry .
    [Show full text]
  • A B S T Ra C T S O F T H E O Ra L and Poster Presentations
    Abstracts of the oral and poster presentations (in alphabetic order) see Addenda, p. 271 11th ICAZ International Conference. Paris, 23-28 August 2010 81 82 11th ICAZ International Conference. Paris, 23-28 August 2010 ABRAMS Grégory1, BONJEAN ABUHELALEH Bellal1, AL NAHAR Maysoon2, Dominique1, Di Modica Kévin1 & PATOU- BERRUTI Gabriele Luigi Francesco, MATHIS Marylène2 CANCELLIERI Emanuele1 & THUN 1, Centre de recherches de la grotte Scladina, 339D Rue Fond des Vaux, 5300 Andenne, HOHENSTEIN Ursula1 Belgique, [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected] 2, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Département Préhistoire du Muséum National d’Histoire 1, Department of Biology and Evolution, University of Ferrara, Corso Ercole I d’Este 32, Ferrara Naturelle, 1 Rue René Panhard, 75013 Paris, France, [email protected] (FE: 44100), Italy, [email protected] 2, Department of Archaeology, University of Jordan. Amman 11942 Jordan, maysnahar@gmail. com Les os brûlés de l’ensemble sédimentaire 1A de Scladina (Andenne, Belgique) : apports naturels ou restes de foyer Study of Bone artefacts and use techniques from the Neo- néandertalien ? lithic Jordanian site; Tell Abu Suwwan (PPNB-PN) L’ensemble sédimentaire 1A de la grotte Scladina, daté par 14C entre In this paper we would like to present the experimental study car- 40 et 37.000 B.P., recèle les traces d’une occupation par les Néan- ried out in order to reproduce the bone artifacts coming from the dertaliens qui contient environ 3.500 artefacts lithiques ainsi que Neolithic site Tell Abu Suwwan-Jordan. This experimental project plusieurs milliers de restes fauniques, attribués majoritairement au aims to complete the archaeozoological analysis of the bone arti- Cheval pour les herbivores.
    [Show full text]
  • Lascaux Cave, France  Complex Hunter Gatherers at the End of the Paleolithic  Dates: 47/45,000 – 20/18,000 B.P
    Lascaux Cave, France Complex Hunter Gatherers at the End of the Paleolithic Dates: 47/45,000 – 20/18,000 b.p. (Epipaleolithic=20/18,000-10,000 bp) Industries include microliths and bone tools—not found in previous periods Raw materials were exchanged over long distances in this period Wide range of materials, other than flint, come into use: bone tools, stone vessels, ochre, shells Some probably for ritual purposes In contrast to early modern humans (and Neanderthals): Size of teeth reduced Size of jaw reduced Muscularity diminishes Less skeletal trauma Increased longevity Cro-Magnon cranium Upper Paleolithic Artwork Cave Art Includes spectacular images of animals and abstract forms and, rarely, humans Mobiliary Art These portable art objects include Venus figurines Body Ornamentation: Pierced shells, pierced animal teeth, and bone beads were most likely work as necklaces or attached to clothing Horse, Cosquer Cave, France Penquin or Auk, Cosquer Cave, France Bear Bison ‘Venus’ figurines Dolni Vestonice Lespugue Willendorf . Appear around 25,000 bp, Europe . Carved in ivory, wood, stone, modeled in clay . Breasts, hips, buttocks, thighs, usually large . Head, arms, hands, legs & feet are only schematic . Some are pregnant, others are not 4.48.jpg Dwellings Huts with bone frameworks Floors with inlaid stone Stone-lined pits for hearths Tailored clothing Long-distance trade Blade technique Long, parallel-sided flakes are struck off the edges of a specially prepared core Blades: long flake, twice as punch long as wide • Sharp parallel edges • Removed from core like peeling carrot (sort of) • Blades provide “blank” or form, which may then be shaped into different tools: .
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Aestheticus’
    Conceptual Paper Glob J Arch & Anthropol Volume 11 Issue 3 - June 2020 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Shuchi Srivastava DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2020.11.555815 Man and Artistic Expression: Emergence of ‘Homo Aestheticus’ Shuchi Srivastava* Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, University of Lucknow, India Submission: May 30, 2020; Published: June 16, 2020 *Corresponding author: Shuchi Srivastava, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, An Autonomous College of University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India Abstract Man is a member of animal kingdom like all other animals but his unique feature is culture. Cultural activities involve art and artistic expressions which are the earliest methods of emotional manifestation through sign. The present paper deals with the origin of the artistic expression of the man, i.e. the emergence of ‘Homo aestheticus’ and discussed various related aspects. It is basically a conceptual paper; history of art begins with humanity. In his artistic instincts and attainments, man expressed his vigour, his ability to establish a gainful and optimistictherefore, mainlyrelationship the secondary with his environmentsources of data to humanizehave been nature. used for Their the behaviorsstudy. Overall as artists findings was reveal one of that the man selection is artistic characteristics by nature suitableand the for the progress of the human species. Evidence from extensive analysis of cave art and home art suggests that humans have also been ‘Homo aestheticus’ since their origins. Keywords: Man; Art; Artistic expression; Homo aestheticus; Prehistoric art; Palaeolithic art; Cave art; Home art Introduction ‘Sahityasangeetkalavihinah, Sakshatpashuh Maybe it was the time when some African apelike creatures to 7 million years ago, the first human ancestors were appeared.
    [Show full text]