 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » recent discovery of very old & very big handaxes in... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Paul Crowley... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:3bdc4ce0f4]The notion that such huge lumps of rock
could be used as weapons, or as cutting
tools, is beyond absurdity (so therefore quite
acceptable to PA 'scientists').
It's quite easy to use them as cutting and chopping
tools.
[/quote:3bdc4ce0f4]
Take a look at:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
. . . and tell us how you use them for
cutting and chopping.
[quote:3bdc4ce0f4]What happens to animals that die near water
(or water courses)? Answer: they are often
Key word - often. But not necessarily, and not always.
[/quote:3bdc4ce0f4]
Sure. Not all 'hand-axes' are found in lakes
and rivers -- just the vast bulk. Some are
found where the animal died and was not
scavenged (such as in a deep den), or was
scavenged by hyenas or other predators.
[quote:3bdc4ce0f4]scavenged by crocodiles, which drag the corpses
into deep water. If those animals had been
predators, and had been 'poisoned' by local
hominids -- in this case the 'poison' being a
sharp-edged rock concealed within an animal
body part -- the 'hand-axe' might fall out of
the predator's corpse, or it might in turn poison
the crocodile. In both cases it would end up
on the lake floor, probably some distance
from its edge.
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the
time and water later returned.
[/quote:3bdc4ce0f4]
Firstly, try to imagine dropping (or 'losing')
the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
Secondly, most 'hand-axes' are found in paleo-
lakes or rivers. Lakes and rivers do not (and
did not) exist and flow everywhere.
Thirdly, most 'hand-axes' retain their pristine
sharp edges -- apparently unused for any
chopping or cutting whatever.
How can THAT be?
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote:6aea295fe9]
RichTravsky wrote:
The notion that such huge lumps of rock
could be used as weapons, or as cutting
tools, is beyond absurdity (so therefore quite
acceptable to PA 'scientists').
It's quite easy to use them as cutting and chopping
tools.
Take a look at:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
. . . and tell us how you use them for
cutting and chopping.
What happens to animals that die near water
(or water courses)? Answer: they are often
Key word - often. But not necessarily, and not always.
Sure. Not all 'hand-axes' are found in lakes
and rivers -- just the vast bulk. Some are
found where the animal died and was not
scavenged (such as in a deep den), or was
scavenged by hyenas or other predators.
scavenged by crocodiles, which drag the corpses
into deep water. If those animals had been
predators, and had been 'poisoned' by local
hominids -- in this case the 'poison' being a
sharp-edged rock concealed within an animal
body part -- the 'hand-axe' might fall out of
the predator's corpse, or it might in turn poison
the crocodile. In both cases it would end up
on the lake floor, probably some distance
from its edge.
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the
time and water later returned.
Firstly, try to imagine dropping (or 'losing')
the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
[/quote:6aea295fe9]
Sigh.
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=600&h=695
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
only using both hands for the larger ones...
[quote:6aea295fe9]Secondly, most 'hand-axes' are found in paleo-
lakes or rivers. Lakes and rivers do not (and
did not) exist and flow everywhere.
[/quote:6aea295fe9]
Your cites for this relationship ->
[quote:6aea295fe9]Thirdly, most 'hand-axes' retain their pristine
sharp edges -- apparently unused for any
chopping or cutting whatever.
How can THAT be?
[/quote:6aea295fe9]
How do you know they're unused? Did you actually look this up in the literature?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-45819M4-2D&_user=2532480&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1035423824&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000057783&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2532480&md5=2e912cad59e93babc4d4293e76cf636d
or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis on Acheulian
stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania)
...
Received 19 November 1999; revised 27 July 2000; accepted 13 December 2000. ;
Available online 1 March 2002.
...
A large number of these artefacts were found at Peninj in Tanzania, and phytolith
analyses on handaxes have yielded for the first time unambiguous evidence of
their function as woodworking tools.
...
http://hand_axe.totallyexplained.com/
...
Studies in the 1990s at Boxgrove in which a Butcher was given a hand axe and told
to butcher a carcass revealed that the hand axe was perfect for getting at the bone
Marrow which's high in protein and vitamins and was highly prized as a food source. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 2:19 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:bd8360ebd6]RichTravsky wrote:
the crocodile. In both cases it would end up
on the lake floor, probably some distance
from its edge.
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the
time and water later returned.
Firstly, try to imagine dropping (or 'losing')
the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
Sigh.
I wrote "the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:"
And how do you think they "got lost"?
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Same way all stone tools got lost. Why do you always ask
such stupid and nonsensical questions?
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=60....
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Liar.
[quote:bd8360ebd6] Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Sharp???? How long is a string? Sharp as compared to what,
the point on your head?
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
That's why sensible folks don't think that they
are 'hand-axes'.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
How would you know anything about what is sensible ?
[quote:bd8360ebd6] Of course, a few simple-minded
dopes,
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Like yourself, for instance?
[quote:bd8360ebd6]seeing that's what they were first called
(for want of anything better) think that's what
they must be -- since that is what they are
called.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
only using both hands for the larger ones...
Ridiculous.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
says the brainless idiot.
[quote:bd8360ebd6] Why have a sharp edge all around?
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
They don't.
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
Secondly, most 'hand-axes' are found in paleo-
lakes or rivers. Lakes and rivers do not (and
did not) exist and flow everywhere.
Your cites for this relationship -
There is a vast literature on 'hand-axes' --
since they exist in huge numbers, almost all
over the Old World. If you look, you'll see
such facts mentioned in numerous places.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
How long is a string again?
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
Thirdly, most 'hand-axes' retain their pristine
sharp edges -- apparently unused for any
chopping or cutting whatever.
How can THAT be?
How do you know they're unused? Did you actually look
this up in the literature?
The great bulk have SHARP edges all
round -- not blunted edges.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
SHARP? How long is a string again? The great bulk of them
are roughly 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 in width to thickness ratio, and with
angles like that your are dealing with something with more
edge angle than a woodsman's splitting wedge.
[quote:bd8360ebd6] If they had
been used as 'hand-axes', most would
have had several blunt edges, if not be
entirely blunt.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
More lip service.
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant
residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj
(Tanzania)
...
If this was true, you would not need a
microscope to see that most of the
implements had been used.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Fool, most handaxes are made of material that
is not condusive to use-wear analysis and were
ground in sediments for millions of years,
why do you think it is so hard to determine their
use?
[quote:bd8360ebd6] Go to any
wood-working shop and you'll notice
that all the tools in use will show signs
of wear.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Yeah, and those "sharp" woodworking tools
have included angles of ca. 20 degrees or less.
Try shaving the hair on your arm with one and then
switch to a handaxe and you will see what sharp
tools are and how dull handaxes are.
[quote:bd8360ebd6]
Received 19 November 1999; revised 27 July 2000;
accepted 13 December 2000. ;
Available online 1 March 2002.
...
A large number of these artefacts were found at
Peninj in Tanzania, and phytolith analyses on handaxes
have yielded for the first time unambiguous evidence
of their function as woodworking tools. ...
Yeah, yeah.
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
Now this idiot thinks he is an anthro.
[quote:bd8360ebd6]As I say,
[/quote:bd8360ebd6]
No you vomit a lot, get lost. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:941a3e7e99]the crocodile. In both cases it would end up
on the lake floor, probably some distance
from its edge.
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the
time and water later returned.
Firstly, try to imagine dropping (or 'losing')
the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
Sigh.
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
I wrote "the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:"
And how do you think they "got lost"?
[quote:941a3e7e99]
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=600&h=695
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there. Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
That's why sensible folks don't think that they
are 'hand-axes'. Of course, a few simple-minded
dopes, seeing that's what they were first called
(for want of anything better) think that's what
they must be -- since that is what they are
called.
[quote:941a3e7e99]only using both hands for the larger ones...
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
Ridiculous. Why have a sharp edge all around?
[quote:941a3e7e99]Secondly, most 'hand-axes' are found in paleo-
lakes or rivers. Lakes and rivers do not (and
did not) exist and flow everywhere.
Your cites for this relationship -
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
There is a vast literature on 'hand-axes' --
since they exist in huge numbers, almost all
over the Old World. If you look, you'll see
such facts mentioned in numerous places.
[quote:941a3e7e99]Thirdly, most 'hand-axes' retain their pristine
sharp edges -- apparently unused for any
chopping or cutting whatever.
How can THAT be?
How do you know they're unused? Did you actually look
this up in the literature?
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
The great bulk have SHARP edges all
round -- not blunted edges. If they had
been used as 'hand-axes', most would
have had several blunt edges, if not be
entirely blunt.
[quote:941a3e7e99]or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant
residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj
(Tanzania)
...
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
If this was true, you would not need a
microscope to see that most of the
implements had been used. Go to any
wood-working shop and you'll notice
that all the tools in use will show signs
of wear.
[quote:941a3e7e99]Received 19 November 1999; revised 27 July 2000;
accepted 13 December 2000. ;
Available online 1 March 2002.
...
A large number of these artefacts were found at
Peninj in Tanzania, and phytolith analyses on handaxes
have yielded for the first time unambiguous evidence
of their function as woodworking tools. ...
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
Yeah, yeah. As I say, there are a few dopes
who think that since they are called 'hand-
axes' that is what they must be. (Actually,
given the nature of the 'discipline', it's quite
surprising that there aren't more.)
[quote:941a3e7e99]http://hand_axe.totallyexplained.com/
...
Studies in the 1990s at Boxgrove in which a Butcher
was given a hand axe and told to butcher a carcass
revealed that the hand axe was perfect for getting at
the bone Marrow which's high in protein and vitamins
and was highly prized as a food source.
[/quote:941a3e7e99]
You snipped almost all of that webpage,
including: " . . As most hand axes have a
sharp border all around, there's no firm
agreement about their use . . "
Btw, I am away for a week, so don't expect
anything more from me in that time.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b71fe959-1671-4861-aee8-31bd4af87596 at (no spam) y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 6:14 pm, "caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com"
<caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:f1daa2d48b]
There is no reason to think that Native Americans at 12 kya used the
same method for cores as the folks 500 kya. However, I tend to doubt
that these large "hand axes" found in the lake beds are cores; the
smaller axes knapped off would not have the same shape as the "parent"
core, without wasting a lot of precious material.
[/quote:f1daa2d48b]
Definition of chaine op’ratoire. French for the entire life
span of an artifact, starting from the walk to the quarry to discard.
http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/clovis-point-and-biface.jpg
Except at the East Wenatchee cache, the cores did not look much
different than
the finished points. The Cores were larger and rougher in appearance
and some
were even fluted, suggesting practice.
http://www.ksartifacts.info/G30%20end%20snap.jpg
This is what is found at Glass Buttes (only obsidian), along with
billions of
bifacial thinning flakes. Only rarely do they break in half. The tip
(end snap is
discarded and a new end or point was fabricated on the slightly
shorter biface,
and off it went to destinations all over the West. There were no
changes for 11,000
years in this approach. The 10,000 year-old end snaps found at Mt.
Edziza are identical
to those found in Central Oregon.
So, Clovis did differ a little in their approach, but Western Stemmed
did not
change at all. Caches from 3 to thousands have been found, obviously
trading stock
for future reduction.
http://www.scahome.org/publications/proceedings/Proceedings.18Brady.pdf
"The present analysis suggests two main points
about the manner of biface manufacture and the role of
these tools within the toolkit in eastern California. First,
based on the thickness-to-width ratios, it is apparent
that Owens Valley bifaces were reduced in roughly the
same manner throughout prehistory. No period
demonstrates that the tools were manufactured
dramatically different to improve their utility as a core.
Second, pre-Newberry bifaces were not as often used as
generalized tools until late in their use-life, whereas
later period bifaces see their greatest amount of usewear
in middle stage forms."
Amen, brother.
Fladmark, K.R.
1985 Glass and Ice: A Report on the Archaeology of the Mt. Edziza
and Spectrum Ranges, Northwest British Columbia.
Publication No. 14, Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby. 217 pages
You also need to read 3 Sides of a Biface by Kelly, probably the
best paper ever on the subject.
Kelly, RL 1988. The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity
53:717-731.
[quote:f1daa2d48b]If they were hoes,.....
[/quote:f1daa2d48b]
I did not suggest they were hoes, I said there are a number of reasons
why large bifaces are made.
[quote:f1daa2d48b]
Has anybody ever tried to "do" something with these large objects that
makes sense? How far can one of these be thrown?
[/quote:f1daa2d48b]
The smaller ones maybe, several papers have been written on that
subject. Search O'Brian or maybe Babara Isaac in sap's search box.
not me____________________________________________________----
deowll
I have my doubts about being able to judge how often a biface might have
been used as a tool if it was still being used a source of flake tools. The
reduction process is going to remove the evidence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a436bf18-6261-4f0f-b43b-74452657ffb7 at (no spam) j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 9:51 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:a4a0559c95]On Sep 21, 5:46 pm, "caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com"
caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
What were these objects used for anyway?
There are a number of reasons
large bifaces are made.
Could have been hafted for use as hoes or celts, lots of larger
examples than these have been found.
http://tinyurl.com/koeu52
Or they could be ceremonial
http://tinyurl.com/n624n5
[/quote:a4a0559c95]
I'm vastly impressed by the ability of moderns to do some truly beautiful
knaping.
I don't think these people know jack about butchering. They completely
ruined the hide though I'm sure many of those were discarded by the ancients
being in surplus or at least I suspect as much.
I strongly suspect that the ancients would have, in most cases, cut the
tendons and removed the musle from the carcas more or less intact for
further processing.
The tool I'd have wanted is an ulu shaped scraper but a small sharp flake or
rather severly of them like a one sided razor blade would have gotten the
job done rather quickly. You wold have blunted the backside of the flake if
both sides were sharp and if one was rather long you might had sapped off
the end and continued to use it.
The handaxe pictured in an earlier post would have worked just fine. You can
use much more of the edge to actually do work with it.
The actual working edge on the knives would have been a few inches near the
points though I suppose you might have used the flates when cutting out a
steak. You need a skillet or grill of some sort to cook a steak. Something
like chunks of meat on a stick over the fire or a stew made with hot stones
in a bison gut after which you remove the stones and eat the rest seems a
lot more likely at least to me.
[quote:a4a0559c95]
Or, it is common practice to rough out blades at the quarry,
no sense in packing around a lot of dead-weight cortex.
Back at camp the bifaces would then be finished
into something smaller (larger flakes being saved of course
for the odd-ball cutting tasks).
May have been just trading stock. They need to find the
source of the material.
The largest actual handaxes are a little larger than the
bifaces shown and were found in England and at
Olorgesailie, Kenya.
At Glass Buttes, Oregon I have seen end-snaps larger
than the largest biface in the
photo.
[/quote:a4a0559c95]
(My computer is trying to crash... errr... ie is crashing... so i have
to send & write a new post)
(found this link of interest, but am looking for a link to typical
cores found in my area (NC of USA)
http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/page/544
At the top of Morrow Mountain, in Morrow Mountain State Park, visitors
can still see the large rhyolite outcrops where North Carolina
dwellers gathered point material for over 10,000 years. Morrow
Mountain and all the Uwharrie Mountains are unique for their numerous
exposed deposits of rhyolite. At one time the Uwharries were volcanic
mountains in a huge inland sea. The rhyolite outcrops were formed from
fast-cooling lava. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote:bfce75405f]
RichTravsky wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8055553.stm
-- a huge flat barren lake floor, with the
remaining water in shallow pools. The hominids
(somehow) ambushed prey animals (on the wide
Weakened by drought and/or mired in mud. that wasn't
so hard to figure out...
Why should the fast quadrupeds be more likely
to suffer drought, and be mired in mud, than
the slow bipedal primates?
[/quote:bfce75405f]
Because they're weakened by drought? Predators, hunters, take advantage of
this.
[quote:bfce75405f]And how do you ambush fast prey on empty
barren flatlands?
[/quote:bfce75405f]
The landscape as it looks *today* would have looked different *then*.
And see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDwig7LM5y8&NR=1
[quote:bfce75405f]open spaces) cut them up, and then discarded
their highly valuable tools on the ground -- where
they could be seen from half-a-mile away. On
their next hunting expedition, they did not say to
themselves: " . . we'll just use those tools we left
there last time . . " -- Oh, No. They went to their
Yes, they could cache. Why are these things so hard
for you?
But -- it seems -- they didn't. The lake
[/quote:bfce75405f]
But -- it seems -- they could. Or even just abandon them.
[quote:bfce75405f]floor was covered in tens of thousands of
these 'tools'. They would have been visible
to any hominid from half-a-mile away. To
anticipate your claim that they might have
buried some (which is not suggested in the
report) -- why would the hominids bury so
many in locations where they could never
find them again?
[/quote:bfce75405f]
Buried? huh? Why would they bury them?
[quote:bfce75405f]'quarry' (probably dozens of miles away) found
Transport of lithic materials over long distances is
already known and from older sites. This is no
surprise.
WHY keep in bringing fresh 'tools' to these
sites -- when there are tens of thousands of
them already there?
[/quote:bfce75405f]
Over time water returns and covers the areas once exposed by drought? Duh?
And drought is cyclical? Duh?
[quote:bfce75405f]suitable rocks, made new 'hand-axes' and carried
them to their dried-up-lake 'killing' site -- so that
soon there were tens of thousands of discarded
stone 'hand-axes' scattered across the empty
barren landscape.
Yep -- it all makes sense -- in PA-land.
" . . Equally remarkable is that the dry lake floor where they
were found is also littered with tens of thousands of other
smaller stone-age tools and flakes, the researchers report.
Professor David Thomas, Head of the School of Geography and the
Environment at the University of Oxford, said: ‘Many of the
tools were found on the dry lake floor, not around its edge,
which challenges the view that big lakes were only attractive
to humans when they were full of water. . ."
Take a good look at the shape of those huge 'hand-axes':
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
One of Olsen's more idiotic 'arguments' is
that the continuous sharp edge at every point
on the circumference of a 'hand-axe' arose by
chance! Yep. According to him, the hominids
were just interested in knocking off flakes (or
some such) and the 'hand-axe' is a discarded
core -- even if usually transported dozens of
miles from its original location (or 'quarry').
How stupid do you have to be to become a PA?
Is there no limit?
How stupid do you have to be to be Paulie? VERY.
Hopeless. This is supposed to be a science
-- where you admit weaknesses and defects in
arguments. It's not a religion where you
defend traditional ideas, no matter how
absurd.
[/quote:bfce75405f]
the irony... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]RichTravsky wrote:
the crocodile. In both cases it would end up
on the lake floor, probably some distance
from its edge.
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the
time and water later returned.
Firstly, try to imagine dropping (or 'losing')
the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
Sigh.
I wrote "the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:"
And how do you think they "got lost"?
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
Who said they were lost?
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=600&h=695
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there. Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
All can be held. How do you think they were made? Duh?
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]That's why sensible folks don't think that they
are 'hand-axes'. Of course, a few simple-minded
dopes, seeing that's what they were first called
(for want of anything better) think that's what
they must be -- since that is what they are
called.
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
Cite for these "sensible folks" ->
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]only using both hands for the larger ones...
Ridiculous. Why have a sharp edge all around?
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
So why are the hands in those pictures bleeding profusely?
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]Secondly, most 'hand-axes' are found in paleo-
lakes or rivers. Lakes and rivers do not (and
did not) exist and flow everywhere.
Your cites for this relationship -
There is a vast literature on 'hand-axes' --
since they exist in huge numbers, almost all
over the Old World. If you look, you'll see
such facts mentioned in numerous places.
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
So you should have no trouble citing one or two of them ->
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]Thirdly, most 'hand-axes' retain their pristine
sharp edges -- apparently unused for any
chopping or cutting whatever.
How can THAT be?
How do you know they're unused? Did you actually look
this up in the literature?
The great bulk have SHARP edges all
round -- not blunted edges. If they had
been used as 'hand-axes', most would
have had several blunt edges, if not be
entirely blunt.
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
Then how could they be held for use, or even held for manufacture?
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant
residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj
(Tanzania)
...
If this was true, you would not need a
microscope to see that most of the
implements had been used. Go to any
wood-working shop and you'll notice
that all the tools in use will show signs
of wear.
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
The study showed on WHAT they used on, not that they were just plain used....
Do you understand the difference?
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]Received 19 November 1999; revised 27 July 2000;
accepted 13 December 2000. ;
Available online 1 March 2002.
...
A large number of these artefacts were found at
Peninj in Tanzania, and phytolith analyses on handaxes
have yielded for the first time unambiguous evidence
of their function as woodworking tools. ...
Yeah, yeah. As I say, there are a few dopes
who think that since they are called 'hand-
axes' that is what they must be. (Actually,
given the nature of the 'discipline', it's quite
surprising that there aren't more.)
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
Explain the plant residue then ->
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]http://hand_axe.totallyexplained.com/
...
Studies in the 1990s at Boxgrove in which a Butcher
was given a hand axe and told to butcher a carcass
revealed that the hand axe was perfect for getting at
the bone Marrow which's high in protein and vitamins
and was highly prized as a food source.
You snipped almost all of that webpage,
including: " . . As most hand axes have a
sharp border all around, there's no firm
agreement about their use . . "
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
Except the part where the butcher used it, eh?
[quote:d6e8ddfb13]Btw, I am away for a week, so don't expect
anything more from me in that time.
[/quote:d6e8ddfb13]
We never expect much from you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"RichTravsky" <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4AD2B342.5358C54 at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com...
[quote:cfe81cae5c]Paul Crowley wrote:
RichTravsky wrote:
the crocodile. In both cases it would end up
on the lake floor, probably some distance
from its edge.
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the
time and water later returned.
Firstly, try to imagine dropping (or 'losing')
the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
Sigh.
I wrote "the 'hand-axes' seen in that photo:"
And how do you think they "got lost"?
Who said they were lost?
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=600&h=695
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there. Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
All can be held. How do you think they were made? Duh?
That's why sensible folks don't think that they
are 'hand-axes'. Of course, a few simple-minded
dopes, seeing that's what they were first called
(for want of anything better) think that's what
they must be -- since that is what they are
called.
Cite for these "sensible folks" -
only using both hands for the larger ones...
Ridiculous. Why have a sharp edge all around?
So why are the hands in those pictures bleeding profusely?
Secondly, most 'hand-axes' are found in paleo-
lakes or rivers. Lakes and rivers do not (and
did not) exist and flow everywhere.
Your cites for this relationship -
There is a vast literature on 'hand-axes' --
since they exist in huge numbers, almost all
over the Old World. If you look, you'll see
such facts mentioned in numerous places.
So you should have no trouble citing one or two of them -
Thirdly, most 'hand-axes' retain their pristine
sharp edges -- apparently unused for any
chopping or cutting whatever.
How can THAT be?
How do you know they're unused? Did you actually look
this up in the literature?
The great bulk have SHARP edges all
round -- not blunted edges. If they had
been used as 'hand-axes', most would
have had several blunt edges, if not be
entirely blunt.
Then how could they be held for use, or even held for manufacture?
or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant
residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj
(Tanzania)
...
If this was true, you would not need a
microscope to see that most of the
implements had been used. Go to any
wood-working shop and you'll notice
that all the tools in use will show signs
of wear.
The study showed on WHAT they used on, not that they were just plain
used....
Do you understand the difference?
Received 19 November 1999; revised 27 July 2000;
accepted 13 December 2000. ;
Available online 1 March 2002.
...
A large number of these artefacts were found at
Peninj in Tanzania, and phytolith analyses on handaxes
have yielded for the first time unambiguous evidence
of their function as woodworking tools. ...
Yeah, yeah. As I say, there are a few dopes
who think that since they are called 'hand-
axes' that is what they must be. (Actually,
given the nature of the 'discipline', it's quite
surprising that there aren't more.)
Explain the plant residue then -
http://hand_axe.totallyexplained.com/
...
Studies in the 1990s at Boxgrove in which a Butcher
was given a hand axe and told to butcher a carcass
revealed that the hand axe was perfect for getting at
the bone Marrow which's high in protein and vitamins
and was highly prized as a food source.
You snipped almost all of that webpage,
including: " . . As most hand axes have a
sharp border all around, there's no firm
agreement about their use . . "
Except the part where the butcher used it, eh?
Btw, I am away for a week, so don't expect
anything more from me in that time.
We never expect much from you.
[/quote:cfe81cae5c]
I'm told a lot of bifaces, which get called handaxes, seem to have
deliberately blunted edges but as these seem to have been cores rather than
an end product I'm not going to call them a handaxe or do more than note
that the observation has been made. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 14, 10:46 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:b86104f794]RichTravsky wrote:
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=60....
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there. Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
All can be held. How do you think they were made? Duh?
How do you think swords or sharp knives are
made? You don't have to hold a sharp edge
to make it.
[/quote:b86104f794]
No flintknapper I've ever seen made a handaxe, in a hot forge,
with a steel hammer, steel anvil, and tongs.
Where do idiots like you come from? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:6a98507249]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8055553.stm
-- a huge flat barren lake floor, with the
remaining water in shallow pools. The hominids
(somehow) ambushed prey animals (on the wide
Weakened by drought and/or mired in mud. that wasn't
so hard to figure out...
Why should the fast quadrupeds be more likely
to suffer drought, and be mired in mud, than
the slow bipedal primates?
Because they're weakened by drought? Predators,
hunters, take advantage of this.
[/quote:6a98507249]
Yeah, yeah. That's why, for the past 4 million
years or so, there have been groups of hominids
at every African water-hole, out-competing the
lions, etc., gradually getting so much better at
killing the prey that all the other predators went
into extinction two million years ago.
In PA it all makes sense.
[quote:6a98507249]And how do you ambush fast prey on empty
barren flatlands?
The landscape as it looks *today* would have looked
different *then*.
[/quote:6a98507249]
You quoted:
[quote:6a98507249]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8055553.stm
[/quote:6a98507249]
.. . . which is what it looks like after the water
has dried up because of a drought. In such
places the water comes and goes frequently.
[quote:6a98507249]And see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDwig7LM5y8&NR=1
[/quote:6a98507249]
That is a DRIVE -- needing hundreds or thousands
of hominids. Do you claim that there were such
numbers on the African savanna at that time?
[quote:6a98507249]floor was covered in tens of thousands of
these 'tools'. They would have been visible
to any hominid from half-a-mile away. To
anticipate your claim that they might have
buried some (which is not suggested in the
report) -- why would the hominids bury so
many in locations where they could never
find them again?
Buried? huh? Why would they bury them?
[/quote:6a98507249]
I was merely anticipating your possible
answer. But I see that you go for the most
dumb: i.e. they made new ones and carried
them huge distances, even though they knew
that they could see plenty on the site.
[quote:6a98507249]'quarry' (probably dozens of miles away) found
Transport of lithic materials over long distances is
already known and from older sites. This is no
surprise.
WHY keep in bringing fresh 'tools' to these
sites -- when there are tens of thousands of
them already there?
Over time water returns and covers the areas once
exposed by drought? Duh? And drought is cyclical? Duh?
[/quote:6a98507249]
The huge 'hand-axes' are found on the lake floor.
[quote:6a98507249]" . . Equally remarkable is that the dry lake floor where they
were found is also littered with tens of thousands of other
smaller stone-age tools and flakes, the researchers report.
Professor David Thomas, Head of the School of Geography and the
Environment at the University of Oxford, said: ‘Many of the
tools were found on the dry lake floor, not around its edge,
which challenges the view that big lakes were only attractive
to humans when they were full of water. . ."
Take a good look at the shape of those huge 'hand-axes':
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg[/quote:6a98507249] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:395501737f]
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=600&h=695
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there. Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
All can be held. How do you think they were made? Duh?
[/quote:395501737f]
How do you think swords or sharp knives are
made? You don't have to hold a sharp edge
to make it.
[quote:395501737f]only using both hands for the larger ones...
Ridiculous. Why have a sharp edge all around?
So why are the hands in those pictures bleeding
profusely?
[/quote:395501737f]
The owners of those hands were foolish
enough to think that the tools might have
been made for throwing. They soon found
out that it was a bad idea.
[quote:395501737f]The great bulk have SHARP edges all
round -- not blunted edges. If they had
been used as 'hand-axes', most would
have had several blunt edges, if not be
entirely blunt.
Then how could they be held for use, or even held for
manufacture?
[/quote:395501737f]
They were never held for use. Manufacture
might sometimes have presented problems.
[quote:395501737f]or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant
residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj
(Tanzania)
...
If this was true, you would not need a
microscope to see that most of the
implements had been used. Go to any
wood-working shop and you'll notice
that all the tools in use will show signs
of wear.
The study showed on WHAT they used on, not that they
were just plain used....
[/quote:395501737f]
The first question should have been whether
or not the 'hand-axes' had been "plain used".
There would then have been no need to imagine
what they could see in the microscope.
[quote:395501737f]Yeah, yeah. As I say, there are a few dopes
who think that since they are called 'hand-
axes' that is what they must be. (Actually,
given the nature of the 'discipline', it's quite
surprising that there aren't more.)
Explain the plant residue then -
[/quote:395501737f]
Plant detritus in a flood got wrapped
around the stones. (Gosh, that was tough!)
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfdsfs at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
news:hb52pe$og2$1 at (no spam) aioe.org...
[quote:3a1594adce]RichTravsky wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8055553.stm
-- a huge flat barren lake floor, with the
remaining water in shallow pools. The hominids
(somehow) ambushed prey animals (on the wide
Weakened by drought and/or mired in mud. that wasn't
so hard to figure out...
Why should the fast quadrupeds be more likely
to suffer drought, and be mired in mud, than
the slow bipedal primates?
Because they're weakened by drought? Predators,
hunters, take advantage of this.
Yeah, yeah. That's why, for the past 4 million
years or so, there have been groups of hominids
at every African water-hole, out-competing the
lions, etc., gradually getting so much better at
killing the prey that all the other predators went
into extinction two million years ago.
In PA it all makes sense.
And how do you ambush fast prey on empty
barren flatlands?
The landscape as it looks *today* would have looked
different *then*.
You quoted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8055553.stm
. . . which is what it looks like after the water
has dried up because of a drought. In such
places the water comes and goes frequently.
And see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDwig7LM5y8&NR=1
That is a DRIVE -- needing hundreds or thousands
of hominids. Do you claim that there were such
numbers on the African savanna at that time?
[/quote:3a1594adce]
A drive is just one group pushing animals in a desired direction. Pygmies
did in the rain forest. Plains Indians did it with bison. Ute did with
rabbits. My old Time Life book reported a location in the Pyrenees Mountains
where it looks like Homo heidelbergensis used some method to drive straight
tusked elephant into a bog most likely using fire. While some large drives
may have had hundreds of people taking part I doubt if anything like took
part in most drives, a thirty or less would seem a lot more likely.
[quote:3a1594adce]floor was covered in tens of thousands of
these 'tools'. They would have been visible
to any hominid from half-a-mile away. To
anticipate your claim that they might have
buried some (which is not suggested in the
report) -- why would the hominids bury so
many in locations where they could never
find them again?
Buried? huh? Why would they bury them?
I was merely anticipating your possible
answer. But I see that you go for the most
dumb: i.e. they made new ones and carried
them huge distances, even though they knew
that they could see plenty on the site.
'quarry' (probably dozens of miles away) found
Transport of lithic materials over long distances is
already known and from older sites. This is no
surprise.
WHY keep in bringing fresh 'tools' to these
sites -- when there are tens of thousands of
them already there?
Over time water returns and covers the areas once
exposed by drought? Duh? And drought is cyclical? Duh?
The huge 'hand-axes' are found on the lake floor.
" . . Equally remarkable is that the dry lake floor where they
were found is also littered with tens of thousands of other
smaller stone-age tools and flakes, the researchers report.
Professor David Thomas, Head of the School of Geography and the
Environment at the University of Oxford, said: ‘Many of the
tools were found on the dry lake floor, not around its edge,
which challenges the view that big lakes were only attractive
to humans when they were full of water. . ."
Take a good look at the shape of those huge 'hand-axes':
http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/giantstoneag.jpg
[/quote:3a1594adce] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| deowll... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Crowley" <dsfdsfdsfs at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
news:hb52pl$og2$3 at (no spam) aioe.org...
[quote:e152e6b0bc]RichTravsky wrote:
http://manchesterhermit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hand-axe.jpg?w=600&h=695
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/handaxe.jpg
Very few 'hand-axes' can be held in the manner
shown there. Most are too small, many are too
big, most are the wrong shape, and nearly all have
a sharp edge all round.
All can be held. How do you think they were made? Duh?
How do you think swords or sharp knives are
made? You don't have to hold a sharp edge
to make it.
only using both hands for the larger ones...
Ridiculous. Why have a sharp edge all around?
So why are the hands in those pictures bleeding
profusely?
The owners of those hands were foolish
enough to think that the tools might have
been made for throwing. They soon found
out that it was a bad idea.
The great bulk have SHARP edges all
round -- not blunted edges. If they had
been used as 'hand-axes', most would
have had several blunt edges, if not be
entirely blunt.
Then how could they be held for use, or even held for
manufacture?
They were never held for use. Manufacture
might sometimes have presented problems.
or http://tinyurl.com/yegaasy
Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant
residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj
(Tanzania)
...
If this was true, you would not need a
microscope to see that most of the
implements had been used. Go to any
wood-working shop and you'll notice
that all the tools in use will show signs
of wear.
The study showed on WHAT they used on, not that they
were just plain used....
The first question should have been whether
or not the 'hand-axes' had been "plain used".
There would then have been no need to imagine
what they could see in the microscope.
Yeah, yeah. As I say, there are a few dopes
who think that since they are called 'hand-
axes' that is what they must be. (Actually,
given the nature of the 'discipline', it's quite
surprising that there aren't more.)
Explain the plant residue then -
Plant detritus in a flood got wrapped
around the stones. (Gosh, that was tough!)
Paul.
[/quote:e152e6b0bc]
Okay the wear patterns typical of use on specific items aren't going to get
there that way nor is material going to get embeded that way so Paul is way
out in not in step with science.
Have fun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 15, 2:21 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:652a611412]
Some researchers come up with the result
that everyone thinks they should find.
What a surprise!
[/quote:652a611412]
How do you know? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:29 pm
|
|