Re: tools and blah

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Candice Bradley: "lists in feminist anthropology (reply to C. Taylor)"
• Previous message: Hugh W Jarvis: "WEDA additions may have been lost"

tools since a more complete overall usage of the material takes place.
In fact micro-liths can be hafted into implements of wood and bone and
are easily replaced or modefied. I've seen cores where so many flakes
have been removed that they look like thin rounded bullets, a prenium
utilization of material. Achulian hand axes could be resharpened
but it seams that they were using only percussion flaking in their
creation and resharpening. This would undoubtedly use up a lot more
material than would presure flaking. As to Mousterian they seam to have
been both percusion flaked and presure flaked which would account for a
improvement in lithic utilization. Plus, I belive both archaic H. sapians
and Neandertalus where both using Mousterian tools. Both of these guys
had much larger brains in comparison to H. erectus.
One thing I just thought of was what about increasing population
densities as a factor in the increase of lithic utilization. The more
people their are might account for hoe much a person wants to conserve
materials that could be used up quikly in a larger population. Further
manipulation of the tools takes place ie: further brain growth and
usage. What do you think?

On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Mr J.M. Ottevanger wrote:

> Very interesting points in reply to my rather facile posting, which really was
> in response to an offhand comment from my professor about his experiences in
> Africa. My knowledge of tools is rather superficial and I think yours points to
> an important direction for this debate. Am I wrong in thinking that Acheulian
> handaxes were resharpened, but how does their durability compare with, say,
> Mousterian material? Are microlithic assemblages a problem in your theory, or
> part of it? I'd be very keen to hear an elaboration of the idea.
> regards, Jeremy
> In the last mail David Tiller said:
> >
> > Just read your letter. Though I agree with you that other factors must
> > have been taking place to cause the expansion of the brain from H.erectus
> > to H.sapien I do think tool development might be a possable explination
> > for some of it. I have recently done some experimentation with stone
> > tools of diferent era's through history. It came to my notice that as
> > time went on tools became more durable. Flakes struck from cores such as
> > coble tools were good for one usage, such as those used by H. erectus.
> > While later tools that were flaked became more durable and useful over
> > longer periods of time. This lead me to believe that as time
> > went on
> > our primative forebearers were moving further and further from lithic
> > procurment sites in search of game. If so, with higher mobilaty would
> > come a need to
> > utilize lithic resources to the maximum while increasing durabilaty and
> > useabilaty. The nead would then influence the utilization of the the
> > brain matter and its increase in the making of increasingly better
> > tools which would allow a forager to roam further from his lithic
> > resources without constantly returning for new material.
> > With increased movement would also come the need to adapt to
> > changing environments. Adaptation to these environments would also
> > increase the use of the old grey matter and its subsequent increase in
> > size. Adaptation to new enviro's would also force new adaptation of the
> > tools. Add infinitum.
> > Of course I could be wrong! Maybe the only way to realy end the
> > argument would be for someone to invent a time machine so we could check
> > it out ourselves!
> >
> > >
> >
>
>

• Next message: Candice Bradley: "lists in feminist anthropology (reply to C. Taylor)"
• Previous message: Hugh W Jarvis: "WEDA additions may have been lost"