 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Anthropology - Paleo Forum » recent discovery of very old & very big handaxes in... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marc Verhaegen... |
 Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
[quote:2ad2794654]http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
[/quote:2ad2794654]
Briefly, WTF?!?
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
What were these objects used for anyway?
Perhaps the makers (knappers) thought that since the smaller hand axe
worked pretty good, that the bigger ones would work even better with
more weight? What does this say about nascent "human" reasoning
ability?
regards
calder |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 21, 5:46 pm, "caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com"
<caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:c25069535e]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?
[/quote:c25069535e]
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
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 21, 6:45 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf... at (no spam) alphalink.com.au> wrote:
[quote:740edcdbb0]caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb47f09-c7bc-45cd-b956-56e19b1ddd3b at (no spam) d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
Briefly, WTF?!?
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
What were these objects used for anyway?
Perhaps the makers (knappers) thought that since the smaller
hand axe
worked pretty good, that the bigger ones would work even better
with
more weight? What does this say about nascent "human"
reasoning
ability?
regards
calder
One theory is that the "hand-axes" were actually the core from
which flake tools were produced. I've always though they looked
too much to have been produced with intent to be the by-product,
but the size of these ones and their apparently limited utility
might move the debate. If Lee's around he's usually the expert on
stone tools though...
[/quote:740edcdbb0]
Handaxes and bifaces vary so much that cores that were used for
flakes were probably not handaxes. The date estimates on these
lakebed finds are really too young to be classic handaxes.
Most true handaxes have finishing-flake scars too small to be
practical
for anything but cutting the wings off bugs.
Now this is a handaxe (what a jewel):
http://tinyurl.com/6x4goy
Yes, the flake scars on the large part of the body could have produced
flakes of good cutting size, but off the tip, no way.
[quote:740edcdbb0]
Ross Macfarlane[/quote:740edcdbb0] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rmacfarl... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb47f09-c7bc-45cd-b956-56e19b1ddd3b at (no spam) d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be> wrote:
[quote:c5a5954466]http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
Briefly, WTF?!?
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
What were these objects used for anyway?
Perhaps the makers (knappers) thought that since the smaller
hand axe
worked pretty good, that the bigger ones would work even better
with
more weight? What does this say about nascent "human"
reasoning
ability?
regards
calder
[/quote:c5a5954466]
One theory is that the "hand-axes" were actually the core from
which flake tools were produced. I've always though they looked
too much to have been produced with intent to be the by-product,
but the size of these ones and their apparently limited utility
might move the debate. If Lee's around he's usually the expert on
stone tools though...
Ross Macfarlane |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rmacfarl... |
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Lee Olsen" <paleocity at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f59cdf1e-221b-4ad5-83e8-0f2398fa0642 at (no spam) v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 6:45 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf... at (no spam) alphalink.com.au> wrote:
[quote:bf95323368]caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb47f09-c7bc-45cd-b956-56e19b1ddd3b at (no spam) d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae... at (no spam) skynet.be
wrote:
http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
Briefly, WTF?!?
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
What were these objects used for anyway?
Perhaps the makers (knappers) thought that since the smaller
hand axe
worked pretty good, that the bigger ones would work even
better
with
more weight? What does this say about nascent "human"
reasoning
ability?
regards
calder
One theory is that the "hand-axes" were actually the core from
which flake tools were produced. I've always though they looked
too much to have been produced with intent to be the
by-product,
but the size of these ones and their apparently limited utility
might move the debate. If Lee's around he's usually the expert
on
stone tools though...
Handaxes and bifaces vary so much that cores that were used for
flakes were probably not handaxes. The date estimates on these
lakebed finds are really too young to be classic handaxes.
Most true handaxes have finishing-flake scars too small to be
practical
for anything but cutting the wings off bugs.
Now this is a handaxe (what a jewel):
http://tinyurl.com/6x4goy
Yes, the flake scars on the large part of the body could have
produced
flakes of good cutting size, but off the tip, no way.
[/quote:bf95323368]
Truly, that is a work of art. You can almost sense the pride the
maker felt when s/he finished that piece.
Lower Paleolithic, according to the web address... That would
make the date what - more than 500 KYA? But from Suffolk, in the
UK?
Ross Macfarlane |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 21, 9:51 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:7b3c2a8281]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
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:7b3c2a8281]
(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 |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 21, 7:41 pm, "rmacfarl" <rmacf... at (no spam) alphalink.com.au> wrote:
[quote:3c4b04749e]
Lower Paleolithic, according to the web address... That would
make the date what - more than 500 KYA?
[/quote:3c4b04749e]
I don't know how solid the dating is, but by this article it is a
little iffy.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22095
Just guessing, I would say any of the good work, UK and elsewhere
came after Homo figured out that soft hammers worked better than
rock for finishing, which would be sometime after 500 KYA.
[quote:3c4b04749e]But from Suffolk, in the
UK?[/quote:3c4b04749e] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 24, 7:04 pm, "caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com"
<caldervang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:dc29a74194]okay, yes, i agree now. but i do think an additional "point" (no pun
actually intended) is that there is some variation among traditions &
source material for the eventual core that is mined.
[/quote:dc29a74194]
Sure, this thread is about handaxes (bifaces) from about
150 kya to 10 kya. During that time simple flakes struck from
amorphous
cores, and blades from prismatic cores probably outnumbered bifaces
100 to 1 in the Old World. It is only in the Americas that bifaces
dominated.
So debitage in the Old World quarries is going to vary a lot more than
here.
That article really doesn't have a whole lot of data to go on, just
have to
wait and see.
<snip>
[quote:dc29a74194]
why would these folks carry around these sharp things?!? seems to me
that it would be pretty hard on their clothing, and, if they were men,
would cause some degree of friction at home! <grin
[/quote:dc29a74194]
Yeah, you wouldn't want to drop that big biface on your foot.
[quote:dc29a74194]The smaller ones maybe, several papers have been written on that
subject. Search O'Brian or maybe Babara Isaac in sap's search box.
[/quote:dc29a74194]
Foo, here is what I was looking for:
O'Brien, E, 1981, The projectile capabilities of an Acheulian
handaxe from Olorgesailie, Current Anthropology 22: 76–9.
I did spell Isaac right, though. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lee Olsen... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
[quote:1bcb7e5b59]
http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
[/quote:1bcb7e5b59]
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
....
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.
"As water levels in the lake went down, or during times when they fluctuated
seasonally, wild animals would have congregated round the resulting watering
holes on the lake bed. It's likely that early human populations would have
seen this area as a prolific hunting ground when food resources in the region
were more concentrated than at times when the regional climate was wetter and
food was more plentiful and the lake was full of water."
.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:1df5a71c1c]Marc Verhaegen wrote:
http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
....
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.
"As water levels in the lake went down, or during
times when they fluctuated seasonally, wild
animals would have congregated round the resulting
watering holes on the lake bed.
[/quote:1df5a71c1c]
If so, the prey animals would have been
killed at or near the current edge of the lake,
and the 'weapons' would not have been
found on the lake floor.
[quote:1df5a71c1c]It's likely that
early human populations would have seen this area
as a prolific hunting ground when food resources
in the region were more concentrated than at times
when the regional climate was wetter and food was
more plentiful and the lake was full of
water."....
[/quote:1df5a71c1c]
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').
What happens to animals that die near water
(or water courses)? Answer: they are often
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.
The hominids may well have set out to poison
large crocodiles in the same manner, and
required (or felt that they required) extra
large 'hand-axes'.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| caldervangogh at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 29, 5:52 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:b4d31e1133]On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd... at (no spam) sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
Absolutely nothing worth reading
FYI:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8055553.stm
[/quote:b4d31e1133]
Dang... not much happnin' in sap these days. Had a death in the
family today. Just don't have much time & tired of seeing Ed Conrad
posts. When will that bonehead leave us alone?!? And, I just had a
huge influx of spam in my mailbox since a couple recent posts.
sigh... Lee, I'll read thru the rest of the info you posted about
points & thx! Otherwise, I'm taking a break for a while til'
something interesting pops up.
FYI, here is a favorite science site:
http://www.sciencenews.org/
regards
calder |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| RichTravsky... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Crowley wrote:
[quote:4660ac7e29]
RichTravsky wrote:
Marc Verhaegen wrote:
http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/
http://www.physorg.com/news171790409.html
....
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.
"As water levels in the lake went down, or during
times when they fluctuated seasonally, wild
animals would have congregated round the resulting
watering holes on the lake bed.
If so, the prey animals would have been
killed at or near the current edge of the lake,
and the 'weapons' would not have been
found on the lake floor.
[/quote:4660ac7e29]
Sigh. The lake floor was dry, Paulie... Ever seen a dried up lake area or
stream? You can walk on it...
[quote:4660ac7e29]It's likely that
early human populations would have seen this area
as a prolific hunting ground when food resources
in the region were more concentrated than at times
when the regional climate was wetter and food was
more plentiful and the lake was full of
water."....
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').
[/quote:4660ac7e29]
It's quite easy to use them as cutting and chopping tools.
[quote:4660ac7e29]What happens to animals that die near water
(or water courses)? Answer: they are often
[/quote:4660ac7e29]
Key word - often. But not necessarily, and not always.
[quote:4660ac7e29]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.
[/quote:4660ac7e29]
Or, the simpler explanation - the area was DRY at the time and water later
returned.
[quote:4660ac7e29]The hominids may well have set out to poison
large crocodiles in the same manner, and
required (or felt that they required) extra
large 'hand-axes'.[/quote:4660ac7e29] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Crowley... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RichTravsky wrote:
[quote:5a29fdf3f9]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...
[/quote:5a29fdf3f9]
Why should the fast quadrupeds be more likely
to suffer drought, and be mired in mud, than
the slow bipedal primates?
And how do you ambush fast prey on empty
barren flatlands?
[quote:5a29fdf3f9]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?
[/quote:5a29fdf3f9]
But -- it seems -- they didn't. The lake
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:5a29fdf3f9]'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.
[/quote:5a29fdf3f9]
WHY keep in bringing fresh 'tools' to these
sites -- when there are tens of thousands of
them already there?
[quote:5a29fdf3f9]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.
[/quote:5a29fdf3f9]
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.
Paul. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:38 pm
|
|