 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » recent discovery of very old & very big handaxes in... |
|
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| mclark... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 15, 4:21 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
[quote:59a03c8a81]deowll wrote:
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!)
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.
How do you know?
Some researchers come up with the result
that everyone thinks they should find.
What a surprise!
To settle this issue we'd have to have the
particular rocks, and study them at length.
No way would I rely on the supposed results
in some 'scientific' paper in this 'discipline'.
Paul.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:59a03c8a81]
Oh, Thank You, Pauly! It's been awhile since
I've made an addition to the Crowley Files. You
say so much when you say so little and I'm sure
that you remain blissfully unaware of the fallout...
"No way would I rely on the supposed results
in some 'scientific' paper in this 'discipline'."
09/15/2009 --P. Crowley
============================== |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
deowll wrote:
[quote:fe9ccc2c2e]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!)
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.
[/quote:fe9ccc2c2e]
How do you know?
Some researchers come up with the result
that everyone thinks they should find.
What a surprise!
To settle this issue we'd have to have the
particular rocks, and study them at length.
No way would I rely on the supposed results
in some 'scientific' paper in this 'discipline'.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Predators today still hunt at water holes. You knew that, didn't you?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Very good! You're learning. From the article
He points to a pile of bones - the remains of a buffalo that has desiccated in
the heat.
"It came here to drink and then it died. If the droughts continue, this will
become an annual ritual."
Animals weakened by drought...
[quote]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]
Hundreds not needed, much less thousands.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/09/neanderthal-mammoth.html
...
Villa, a curator of paleontology at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural
History, told Discovery News that other evidence suggests Neanderthals hunted
the giant mammals, but not as directly. At the English Channel Islands, for
example, 18 woolly mammoths and five woolly rhinoceroses dating to 150,000 years
ago "were driven off a cliff and died by falling into a ravine about 30 meters
(over 98 feet) deep. They were then butchered."
...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17275-stone-age-hunting-traps-found-deep-in-great-lakes.html
Nearly 10,000 years ago, 50 metres beneath the surface of what is now North
America's Lake Huron, hunters set an ambush. Caribou were herded through stone
corridors towards archers that lay waiting behind low parapets.
No bones or drawings have been found to tell this ancient tale. Instead sonar
mapping has given researchers detailed views of the lake floor, which flooded
8000 years ago, preserving a Pompeii-like snapshot of local human history.
...
Picture caption:
Caribou drive lanes have been used in the Canadian Arctic for many hundreds of years
Go look up buffalo jumps and sheep traps...
[quote]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.
[/quote]
You still have not explained why they'd bury them... they get covered with sediment
when the watger levels return.
[quote]'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.
[/quote]
*Dry* lake floor.
[quote]" . . 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] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
You say :a sharp edge all round" So how do you hold it to do that?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Cite ->
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Cite ->
This will get you started:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=knapping&btnG=Google+Search&fp=79c2456f3a951e6b
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Wood working shops today do not use stone tools. And these stone
tools have been buried for some time... so you need something like
a microscope (in this study, light microscope, SEM)
[quote]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!)
[/quote]
Wrong. By applying with force against wood. Other studies
Loy (1998) has also identified residues of plant remains (woody fibers—
tracheids—cellulose fibers, starch grains) and residues from animals (red
blood cells, hair fragments, collagen) on Oldowan tools from an assemblage
excavated in Sterkfontein (South Africa) and dated to 1.7–2.0Ma.
find material worked into the tools. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote]
deowll wrote:
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!)
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.
How do you know?
[/quote]
How do you know?
[quote]Some researchers come up with the result
that everyone thinks they should find.
What a surprise!
To settle this issue we'd have to have the
particular rocks, and study them at length.
No way would I rely on the supposed results
in some 'scientific' paper in this 'discipline'.
[/quote]
They do have the tools. They did study them.
Artefacts were carefully excavated and retrieved with the sediment matrix adhering
to their surfaces. Five artefacts (three handaxes and two flakes) were analyzed for
their phytolith contents. The adhering matrix was sampled separately from the soil
deposits. The adhering sediment was >5 mm thick on average. Samples of sediment
matrix on the artefacts were taken from three areas, including the edges, the
internal surface on the proximal negative scars, and the ventral/dorsal central part
(Figure 2). Samples were taken from artefact surfaces after having extracted the
sediment
adhered to them. This sediment was also analyzed for phytolith contents, but it
yielded negative results. The artefacts were not chemically treated or cleaned to
prevent
contamination and loss of information. Each residue sample was extracted by means of
laboratory picks. Samples from the artefacts (between 0·5 and 2 g) were then removed
from three areas (edges, internal surface on the proximal negative scars, and the
ventral/
dorsal central part) with the aid of a scalpel, and kept in sterile plastic bags.
Samples
were mixed with sodium hexametaphosphate and sieved in 200 um and 50 um
sieves. Sands were weighted and separated for mineralogical and phytolith analyses by
light microscope, as shown in Serrallonga et al. (1999). The sediment that passed
through the sieves was retained and rinsed with distilled water and a decantation
process. Residues in artefacts were analyzed by correlative microscopy. The silt
fraction
was mounted in Cinnamaldehyde, allowing the phytoliths to be rotated.
Cinnamaldehyde has a refractive index of 1·6 allowing clear viewing of the
phytoliths.
The samples obtained were observed with a light microscope Olympus BH-2, at a x400
magnification. Samples for scanning electron microscope were coated with carbon
(for X-ray microanalysis) and with a layer of gold of about 400 Ar (for photographs).
Cambridge Stereoscan S-120 allows a resolution power of 6 nm magnification from
9 to 200,000, and an accelerating voltage from 1 to 30 kV. The S.E.M. was
operated at different magnification and 15 kV accelerating voltage in secondary
electron
mode. The discovery of certain trace elements (Ca, Si) used to identify the
mineralization
of fibers and phytoliths was made by X-ray microanalysis. The stubs were
also viewed and photographed in a Hitachi S-2300 scanning electron microscope
operating
at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:32 pm
|
|