 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / March 2005Article: Prehistoric Knives Suggest Humans Competed
Prehistoric Knives Suggest Humans Competed By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News Feb. 1, 2005 - A recent excavation of 400,000-year-old stone tools in Britain suggests that two groups of early humans could have competed with each other for food and turf. In the past, anthropologists have argued that only one group of ancient humans lived in Britain, and that these hominids created and used both axes and flake knives, which were made by flaking off small particles from a larger rock, or by breaking off a large flake that was then used as the tool. Archaeologists in Ebbsfleet, Kent, investigating the site of a new high-speed rail link connection for the Channel Tunnel, found the remains of a huge Stone Age elephant, Palaeoloxodon antiquus. Some form of prehistoric human had chopped up the beast with stone flake tools before consuming the elephant raw. Additional flake tools were found nearby, suggesting that the hunters had camped out in the area. Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to trying to cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper axes, why wouldn't they? A number of experts think that the Stone Age flake knife users were distinct from the axe makers, which would indicate that two separate groups, and possibly even two separate hominid species, would have simultaneously coexisted in ancient Britain and been in competition for food and resources. "The evidence is only tantalizing, but it is intriguing," said Chris Stringer, director of the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain Project and a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum, London. "Certainly it suggests Britain may well have been multicultural 400,000 years ago." Stringer added, "At this time in Europe, Homo heidelbergensis was giving way, or evolving, into Neanderthals. There are hints gleaned from comparing bits of their bones and tools that we have found in Britain and the continent that there may be separate species of this creature: one that made hand-axes and one that did not. This is one of the big questions of human evolution studies today and a major focus for our work." Before the recent discoveries, clues to Britain's early inhabitants included a shinbone, a couple of teeth, pieces of a skull that probably belonged to one of our early, apish ancestors, and Stone Age flake knives and axes. The axes demonstrate an early form of technology called Acheulean, which is characterized by two-sided tools with a handhold. These axes resemble almond-shaped rocks with a cutting surface on top, while some experts liken the flake tools to modern box knives. To the untrained eye, most flake tools resemble rocks with edges. Mike Pitts, editor of British Archaeology magazine, agreed with Stringer, although Pitts said he thought that the flake knife users, called Clactonians, were not unsophisticated. They just may have had a different culture, similar to how some people today use chop sticks while others use forks. "Faced with butchering an elephant, you'd get it done a lot more efficiently with hand axes, because they have longer and stronger cutting edges than flakes," Pitts told Discovery News. Pitts continued, "When you're a good knapper, as these guys were, knocking up a hand axe takes little more time than a bunch of good flakes. You just need to be a bit more prepared, (with) better flint, and a good selection of knapping tools." Nick Ashton, an archaeologist at the British Museum, thinks that the flake knife fanciers might have been foreign. "I would now consider the possibility of a group of different people coming from a different part of Europe," Ashton said. "Not necessarily a different species, but a cultural interpretation is plausible." All three experts, however, agree that two distinct groups, one that favored axes and another that favored flakes, may have coexisted in Stone Age Britain and likely were in competition with each other for food and land. In the future, they hope to determine exactly what happened to the flake-using losers. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050131/knifefight.html  SignaturePosted by Robert Karl Stonjek > Prehistoric Knives Suggest Humans Competed > By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > possibly even two separate hominid species, would have simultaneously > coexisted in ancient Britain and been in competition for food and resources. Like something from West Side Story? > [...] > Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to trying to > cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper > axes, why wouldn't they? To be fair, that's entirely untrue. Flake knives are often razor-sharp. They're sometimes small and inconvenient, but they're FAR better for cutting meat than rocks. Perhaps the author isn't an anthropologist. I'd hope anyone who is (and covers the relevent period) has played around with flake knives a bit. > > Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to trying to > > cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper > > axes, why wouldn't they? > > To be fair, that's entirely untrue. True. There are several things wrong with the above statement. 1) Numerous examples exist in the literature where bifaces were manufactured elsewhere, brought to a site and then hauled away again (evidence being the bifacial sharpening flakes); why leave your good silverware behind? 2) The as-struck flake will be sharper than a retouched edge of a biface. The author has probably confused the length-of-cutting edge of a biface as opposed to the lessor length of edge on a smaller flake, which gives it somewhat a disadvantage overall. Just the same, Kathy Schick (Making Silent Stones Speak) demonstrated that a simple flake will cut through a tough elephant hide very easily with just a ladies touch. > Flake knives are often razor-sharp. Not true. The article deals within the time frame of the Acheulian. During this period flakes (or axes/bifaces) were never razor sharp, unless one happens to own a very dull razor. Flakes and bifaces were made by hard-hammer percussion and occasionally a soft hammer was used. The material they were using, flint, simply does not have the potential, made by these methods, to become literally razor-sharp. It was only hundreds of thousands of years later that cultures such as the Mayans made blades from obsidian prismatic cores, using a pressure method, that could rival or exceed tool steels of today in terms of razor sharpness. This is true only when a high quality obsidian is used. Any doubts? Try shaving with a flint flake sometime :-) > They're sometimes small and inconvenient, but they're FAR better for cutting > meat than rocks. Yep. > Perhaps the author isn't an anthropologist. I'd bet on it. > I'd hope anyone who is (and > covers the relevent period) has played around with flake knives a bit. Flake knives may find little resistence in cutting hide and flesh, but the sharp as a razor quip is just an old wives tale, with just the one exception of a pressured prismatic-obsidian blade. |> Kaz wrote: |> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] |> The material they were using, flint, simply does not have the |> potential, made by these methods, to become literally razor-sharp. You clearly aren't a gardener in a flint area. When a flint is broken by a blow, it usually produces some edges that are very well-defined but at fairly obtuse angles (say, 30+ degrees). They don't cut much. But occasionally it flakes, with edges at very acute angles, and those can indeed be razor sharp. From experience at having cut myself on them, I do mean literally razor or scalpel sharp. Flint (at least in the UK) most assuredly has the potential to produce razor sharp edges, which is a far cry from saying that they can be produced to order. I know that I can't do so, but I am no knapper. Regards, Nick Maclaren. > |> Kaz wrote: > |> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > they can be produced to order. I know that I can't do so, but > I am no knapper. It depends on the quality of the flint. Good flint is mostly silica and is sharper than the best steel when properly flaked and unworn. I can't sware it is as sharp as obsidian but the difference isn't great. I'm shocked Lee doesn't know this. > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. >> |> Kaz wrote: >> |> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >it is as sharp as obsidian but the difference isn't great. I'm shocked Lee >doesn't know this. Even the best flint isn't as sharp as obsidian, but it's plenty sharp. 'Razor sharp' is not an exaggeration. --RC >> Regards, >> Nick Maclaren. "Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr. [...] >> Flint (at least in the UK) most assuredly has the potential to >> produce razor sharp edges, which is a far cry from saying that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it is as sharp as obsidian but the difference isn't great. I'm shocked Lee > doesn't know this. I'm not. >> Regards, >> Nick Maclaren. SignatureYada, yada, yada. > > You clearly aren't a gardener in a flint area. > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I can't sware it is as sharp as obsidian but the difference isn't > great. I'm shocked Lee doesn't know this. My specimens of high quality flint, tend to be very glassy. They clink like peices of glass. And they break like pieces of glass too. A piece of high quality black flint will have translucent edges. Signaturepete > > > You clearly aren't a gardener in a flint area. > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > And they break like pieces of glass too. > A piece of high quality black flint will have translucent edges. Since you are a 'hands on' type of guy, try the test I suggested to Mac. Take the razor challenge! > > > > You clearly aren't a gardener in a flint area. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Since you are a 'hands on' type of guy, try the test I suggested to > Mac. Take the razor challenge! I just shaved some hair off my arm with a jasper flake. I'll admit it's not the smoothest edge I've ever felt. I'll tell you what is very sharp and smooth though: I also just shaved a little bit with a large broken Herkimer Diamond. That's clear quartz crystal. Signaturepete > > > > > You clearly aren't a gardener in a flint area. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > with a large broken Herkimer Diamond. > That's clear quartz crystal. I've done more tests also. A serrated kitchen knife (under $20) will also cut a letter off newsprint without cutting hole in the paper. The kitchen knife is same brand as my pocket knife (and only half the included angle), so no surprise. I made a few prismatic blades as per Crabtree (1968). These also pass the newsprint test. Next test I used 4024 Xerox hi-speed 20lb. copy paper 11 X 17. Holding a single sheet of paper between index finger and thumb at top right hand-edge about 1 inch back, I could slice strips the full 17 inch length with a straight razor, both steel knives and obsidian blades w/out tearing the paper. The straightest cuts, with least amount of burr, were made with straight razor. One problem with the prismatic blades is that it is hard to make them perfectly straight, free of shock waves (ripples), and impossible to make them symmetrical in cross section, at least without somehow grinding them. Another thing that happened, when I first gripped the obsidian blade between my thumb and index finger I used too much pressure and the edges actually broke in my fingers. The literature is replete with articles on butchering experiments done with stone tools---- Plains Anthropologist, Texas Archaeology, Lithic Technology, Olduvai V, etc. to name a few journals that report that kind of thing. But all that I have read have one thing in common-no standardization. Many of these papers comment on how much better the stone tools performed than the steel knives present at the site during their experiments. This may be true in some cases, but when everything is equal, it isn't going to happen. Here is a typical citation and also found in anthropology books and papers: http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/excolclo.html "Sixteenth-century Spaniards were awed by the razor-sharp obsidian blades they encountered in their conquests of the Mayan and Aztec nations. Bernal Diaz del Castillo in his chronicles of Cortes's march to the City of Mexico in 1519 repeatedly described Indian weapons, including the "two-handled swords set with stone knives that cut better than our swords... so sharp... that they could shave their heads with them" (Idell 1956: 152), and remarked on the damage that these swords could do, as when "the Indians caught [Pedro de Moron's] lance so that he could not use it while others slashed at him with their swords and sliced at the mare [he was riding], cutting off her head" (Idell 1956: 100)." The issue isn't what the Mayans were doing right, but what the Spanish were doing wrong. http://www.himalayanmart.com/khukuri/khukuri.php Buff Head Khukuri (Kukri) "This khukuri (kukri) is the largest knife made in Nepal. The khukuri (kukri) has a staggering weight of 5 kgs and the blade is remarkably long and measures 40" and 13" long handle made of rosewood, while the scabbard is that of buffalo leather. This khukuri is specially used by the skilled person during the sacrificial ceremonies to chop the head of water buffalo hence known as "Buff Head". He has to do it in one blow otherwise the year will bring bad omen for Nepalese." > > Here is a typical citation and also found in anthropology books and > papers: It is typical. The original text by Bernal Diaz actually describes flint weapons instead. I think that a lot of anthropologists have trouble envisioning any stone besides obsidian, being razor sharp, to the degree that it affects their transcription abilities. "The Conquest of New Spain", by Bernal Diaz, Penguin Classics, page 142: "Their swords, which were as long as broadswords, were made of flint which cut worse than a knife, and the blades were set so that one could neither break them nor pull them out." There are other mentions of flint blades in the book, but not of obsidian. Heat treated flint, which I don't have as a raw material, is glassier than the jasper that I tested. I'm familiar with cryptocrytaline quartz stones being transported over a thousand miles from quarry, but not obsidian. One of the properties of obsidian which makes it less desirable than flint as a durable tool material, is that obsidian generally isn't as hard. > http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/excolclo.html > "Sixteenth-century Spaniards were awed by the razor-sharp obsidian [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sliced at the mare [he was riding], cutting off her head" (Idell 1956: > 100)." Signaturepete > > Here is a typical citation and also found in anthropology books and > > papers: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any stone besides obsidian, being razor sharp, > to the degree that it affects their transcription abilities. I think a lot of people in general, anthropologists included, have no clue what-so-ever just how sharp a steel razor can get. And even if an electron microscope claims lithics are sharper, they will only will remain so until they touch something. > "The Conquest of New Spain", by Bernal Diaz, > Penguin Classics, page 142: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There are other mentions of flint blades in the book, > but not of obsidian. According to Spanish Franciscan Friar, Juan de Torquemada, (Holmes 1919:323): "They had, and still have, workmen who make knives of certain black stone or flint....." Crabtree (1968:448): (1) "We now know that these blades are of obsidian whereas the translation observed that the black stone is as hard as "flint." This could be due to Torquemada's lack of knowledge of the properties of stone or to his desire to be more descriptive; however, if we were to take this literally, it could be quite misleading regarding the lithic material." Thanks to Hester et al., we also know that the Mayans used mostly obsidian for their prismatic blades, although they did make a small percent out of flint and other materials. They also, on a percentage basis, made very few prismatic blades compared to the whole of their lithic tools. Most debitage is bifacial and of flint. So it would appear the good friar (and by extension, Diaz) was mistaken. > Heat treated flint, which I don't have as a raw material, > is glassier than the jasper that I tested. A couple of years ago I did a scratch test on a piece of raw chalcedony, then heat treated it (350 F). The change was from a frosted look to a noticeable waxy look, but the hardness did not change that I could measure. The molecules must rearrange without changing the hardness of the silica itself. It did knap a lot easier, and it did lose edge strength. That's the trade off I guess. > I'm familiar with cryptocrytaline quartz stones > being transported over a thousand miles from quarry, > but not obsidian. Obsidian from Glass Buttes, Oregon has been found as far east as Ohio. Jasper from the Mojave Desert has been found at Glass Buttes. The largest Clovis point ever found is made from obsidian traced to central Oregon. That point was found nearly 500 miles away in East Wenatchee, Washington, yet the East Wenatchee Clovis people had some of the most beautiful material (IMO) to work with. Who knows why different material got tracked around the way it did. > One of the properties of obsidian which makes it less desirable > than flint as a durable tool material, > is that obsidian generally isn't as hard. There is very little (good quality) obsidian found in Washington. What low % that is found at the sites (most traced to Oregon) is generally worked down to much smaller flakes before it is tossed than the local materials, which are more often found as chunks. I'm just guessing, but the obsidian around here was probably used for more specific tasks, like the Mayan obsidian. It certainly had a value of some sort to make it worthwhile to transport it hundreds of miles. > pete I am _not_ going to get in the middle of a flame war, but. . . >>Here is a typical citation and also found in anthropology books and >>papers: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There are other mentions of flint blades in the book, > but not of obsidian. I strongly suspect a translators error. This is doubly true since the Mesoamericans had a highly developed obsidian industry. > Heat treated flint, which I don't have as a raw material, > is glassier than the jasper that I tested. > I'm familiar with cryptocrytaline quartz stones > being transported over a thousand miles from quarry, > but not obsidian. Obsidian was routinely traded over long distances at least in the Southwest and Mesoamerica > One of the properties of obsidian which makes it less desirable > than flint as a durable tool material, > is that obsidian generally isn't as hard. Obsidian was the material of choice where it was available. Among many, many other references relating to these matters: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:119315601&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:65537230&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:124862982&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf http://www.swxrflab.net/tontobs/Default.htm http://laii.unm.edu/papers/research/santley.html http://www.famsi.org/cgi-bin/print_friendly.pl?file=00046 http://www.mexicon.de/pdf/20mexic6.pdf > I am _not_ going to get in the middle of a flame war, but. . . > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I strongly suspect a translators error. Pretty safe bet to believe a Crabtree over a Penguin :-) > This is doubly true since the > Mesoamericans had a highly developed obsidian industry. And a highly developed chert industry, highly developed macroblade industry, microblade industry, Levallois industry, ground tool industry, biface industry----was there anything they didn't highly develop? That's what makes them top-choice-study targets when it comes to deciding just what lithic efficiency means. > > Heat treated flint, which I don't have as a raw material, > > is glassier than the jasper that I tested. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obsidian was routinely traded over long distances at least in the > Southwest and Mesoamerica And routinely traded over long distances in the Pacific Northwest. But Pete is correct about cryptocrystalline material being traded over long distances too. I just don't see how he could eliminate obsidian from the mix. > > One of the properties of obsidian which makes it less desirable > > than flint as a durable tool material, > > is that obsidian generally isn't as hard. > > > Obsidian was the material of choice where it was available. Even your own citations don't come to that conclusion. Politics played an obvious part. If obsidian were the material of choice and long distance trade made it profitable, then over the course of 2000 years its use should have increased steadily over time until it finally overwhelmed the chert industries. That didn't happen. > Among many, many other references relating to these matters: Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, editors. 1991 Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Litic Conference. Monographs in World Archaeology No.1 http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:119315601&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:65537230&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?DOCID=1G1:124862982&refid=ip_encyclopedia_hf > http://www.swxrflab.net/tontobs/Default.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.mexicon.de/pdf/20mexic6.pdf > And routinely traded over long distances in the Pacific Northwest. But > Pete is correct about cryptocrystalline material being traded over > long distances too. I just don't see how he could eliminate obsidian > from the mix. I'm just saying that obsidian has a better reputation than it deserves. Signaturepete > > |> Kaz wrote: > > |> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > It depends on the quality of the flint. Good flint is mostly silica http://www.digitalfire.ab.ca/cermat/material/316.html "Flint is usually contaminated with limestone (thus the CaO content and the LOI). There will also be trace amounts of iron and MgO." Just because something has silica in it doesn't prove that every material that contains silica has the same properties. http://www.eskimo.com/~knapper/HotStuff.html "These very small quartz crystals of similar size give flint its conchoidal fracture with a hardness similar to quartz (6.5 to 7 on the hardness scale) and a durability greater than obsidian." Obsidian being 5 to 5 1/2 on the Moh's scale. http://chemistry.boisestate.edu/rbanks/glassblowing/glassblowing_history.htm "Quartz is characterized by a very long-range crystal order, unlike glasses, which have no regular internal structure." > and is > sharper than the best steel when properly flaked and unworn. Cite your source where this has been demonstrated. >I can't sware > it is as sharp as obsidian Since the crystals in flint are relatively large, it simply doesn't have the same potential as obsidian. > but the difference isn't great. I'm shocked Lee > doesn't know this. Since your statement is not true, it's no wonder Lee didn't know this. One can also argue that the difference between whiskey and water is not great either, since they both contain mostly H2O. Any good knapper can tell you that flint is as different from obsidian as whiskey is from water. > > Regards, > > Nick Maclaren. > |> Kaz wrote: > |> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You clearly aren't a gardener in a flint area. I do my gardening here: http://www.cfmsinc.org/Fieldtrp/ObsidBon/obsidbon.htm $12 per ton, but the first 500 lbs is free. Since a "pressured" obsidian blade can feather out to about a single molecule and flint won't, then any example of sharpness will apply at least equally to obsidian. > When a flint is broken by a blow, it usually produces some edges > that are very well-defined but at fairly obtuse angles (say, 30+ > degrees). Depends on what the knapper has in mind to make. > They don't cut much. The statement made by Jennifer Viegas was a comparison between axes and flakes made during the Acheulian. Most handaxes greatly exceed 30 degrees on their edges. The flakes produced by thinning or sharpening them were no where near 30 degrees. Either will easily cut through elephant hide or your fingers. > But occasionally it flakes, with edges at very acute angles, and > those can indeed be razor sharp. Not razor sharp in the context of the Acheulian, which is what the article of this thread was about. > From experience at having cut > myself on them, I did not imply that you couldn't cut yourself---- quoting what was snipped out by you: "Flake knives may find little resistence in cutting hide and flesh." Where is your evidence that an edge must be razor sharp in order to cut your pinkie? > I do mean literally razor or scalpel sharp. False in the context of the Acheulian as I clearly stated in my post to Kaz, I will explain exactly why below. > Flint (at least in the UK) most assuredly has the potential to > produce razor sharp edges, But not for the Acheulian knappers. > which is a far cry from saying that > they can be produced to order. Why did you snip out: "made by these methods" from my post? > I know that I can't do so, but > I am no knapper. Crabtree (1968): "obsidian appears to have the properties of a solid, yet it behaves in the manner of a heavy liquid." When one strikes a core with a hammerstone or a bone, it's like dropping a rock into a pool of water. As the shock-waves fan out and hit the shore, ripples will be left on the beach. This is what the highly magnified edge of your detached flake will look like no matter how thin it is or what the angle. But such a flake can still be sharp enough to cut your fingers with no problem. These waves must be eliminated in order to get a surgical edge. The point of a pressure flaker slowly pushed into the surface of a pond will create few or no ripples, nor would this type action leave any ripples on the beach. This same principle applied to a core (of numerous high grade lithic materials), slow pressure, creates the type of flake detachment that can feather out to sharper than a surgeons-scalpel edge rather than a rough ripple-beach type of an edge. They simply weren't doing this type of flaking 400,000 years ago. Next time you cut yourself in your garden, wash the blood off the flint and see if you can shave your beard with it. Crabtree, D 1968 Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades. American Antiquity 33:446-478. > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. > Prehistoric Knives Suggest Humans Competed > By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050131/knifefight.html "The only real difference between Clactonian and Acheulian being the presence or absence of bifaces." And "At Barnham an indusrty which has traditionally been interpreted as Clactonian is also seen to be contemporary with biface manufacture. This strongly suggests that the notion of Clactonian and Acheulian industries being culturally distinct is incorrect." Nick Ashton, John McNabb, Brian Irving, Simon Lewis & Simon Parfitt Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at Barnham, Suffolk. Antiquity 68 (1994): 585-9 I'm happy to see some real criticism of this news report. The 'Clactonian question' has been an unresolved issue in British archeology for decades, and it is not going to be 'solved' by examination of the Ebbsfleet cultural assemblage. The Discovery News article only presents a biased, hyped-up, one-sided view of the issues involved. Dar > I'm happy to see some real criticism of this news report. The > 'Clactonian question' has been an unresolved issue in British > archeology for decades, and it is not going to be 'solved' by > examination of the Ebbsfleet cultural assemblage. The Discovery News > article only presents a biased, hyped-up, one-sided view of the issues > involved. Assuming for the moment that Jennifer Viegas of Discovery News got the story even half right and did not malign the statements of the anthros too badly (which would be amazing feat in itself), the Flake People vs the Axe People hypothesis has a few more problems that I didn't mention yesterday. Let's move from Ebbsfleet over to Boxgroove and a site called Q2/C (Roberts, et al. 1997). It is thought to be about 500,000 years old, roughly 100,000 years older than the Ebbsfeet site. Here workers found some beautifully made ovate handaxes. Ninety percent of the axes had a large tranchet flake removed from the distal end. Essentially what this single flake removal does is transform a cute little biface into a ugly cleaver. It also makes mince meat out of Jennifer's statement "Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to trying to cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper axes, why wouldn't they?" Anotherwords, after the handaxe maker went to all the trouble to create a sleeker, sharper axe as Jennifer surmised, the maker turned right around and knocked off one last large flake that turned the sleek-sharper edge right back into what an as-struck flake would look like and cut like. Q2/C also has evidence of utilized flakes and retouched flakes. I suppose it could be argued that both the Flake People and the Axe People used the site at different times. One problem however, some of the utilized flakes were the very tranchet flakes knocked off the hand axes. So, 100,000 years before Ebbsfleet and any evidence of a new people as Stringer is proposing, we have the old people using both axes and flakes at the same site. M.B. Roberts, S.A. Parfitt, M.I. Pope ans F.F. Wenban-Smith Boxgroove, West Sussex: Rescue Excavations of a Lower Palaeolithic Landsurface (Boxgroove Project B, 1989-91) Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, (1997):303-358 > Dar >> I'm happy to see some real criticism of this news report. The >> 'Clactonian question' has been an unresolved issue in British [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > people as Stringer is proposing, we have the old people using both axes > and flakes at the same site. Most likely they needed more edge and didn't have a good source of high grade flint handy so they converted what was handy, the tools they brought, to more edge. > M.B. Roberts, S.A. Parfitt, M.I. Pope ans F.F. Wenban-Smith > Boxgroove, West Sussex: Rescue Excavations of a Lower > Palaeolithic Landsurface (Boxgroove Project B, 1989-91) > Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, (1997):303-358 > >> Dar > >> I'm happy to see some real criticism of this news report. The > >> 'Clactonian question' has been an unresolved issue in British [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > grade flint handy so they converted what was handy, the tools they brought, > to more edge. Sorry, but the data from Red Barns (Wenban-Smith 2000) shows they would rather use (at least in that case) inferior at-hand material than walk 150 meters to get the best quality. > > M.B. Roberts, S.A. Parfitt, M.I. Pope ans F.F. Wenban-Smith > > Boxgroove, West Sussex: Rescue Excavations of a Lower > > Palaeolithic Landsurface (Boxgroove Project B, 1989-91) > > Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, (1997):303-358 > > > >> Dar > It also makes mince meat out of Jennifer's statement > "Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > last large flake that turned the sleek-sharper edge right back into > what an as-struck flake would look like and cut like. I'm having trouble with the entire "sleeker, sharper axe" concept. It's like comparing a bow to a gun, and talking about the "stronger, greater ranging bow". There's nothing sharper or sleeker than a flake. Signaturepete > > It also makes mince meat out of Jennifer's statement > > "Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There's nothing sharper or sleeker than a flake. I agree, the as-struck flake will be sharper than the finished axe. So she has that part just backwards (at least when cutting steaks--- the example she used). But the confusion lies in the word sleek. You and I have a different idea of what constitutes "sleek" than she does. We think in terms of what's practical. The nice straight-edge of a Bowie Knife, for instance, is sleek, at least that's how I look at it. From an esthetic viewpoint the cuneiform axe of the Acheulian period is a symmetrical work of art in plan form. Jennifer is thinking if it looks good (sleek), it must therefore cut good. And that of course is wrong in the context she used. But the situation can get very complicated if we were to change her statement to "steak bone" instead of "juicy steaks." Now she would be on firmer ground. If one had the task of removing the tusk of an elephant, a very dull chain saw will out cut the sharpest flake or the sharpest Bowie Knife. Same with an Acheulian axe, the longer edge and serrated relatively-dull teeth, in comparison to the initially sharper flake, will not clog up with blood, fat etc. as quick and can actually out cut a sharp-edge flake in the long run. Without being able to see the chaine operatoire process it's very difficult to tell just which "edge" would be most efficient in every case. > > > It also makes mince meat out of Jennifer's statement > > > "Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to > > > trying to cut into a juicy steak with a rock. No, it would literally be cutting a juicy steak with a rock. > But the situation can get very complicated if we were to change her > statement to "steak bone" instead of "juicy steaks." > Now she would be on firmer ground. Yes, she would be. The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather using a flake knife that he made on the spot for the task. He had cubic chunk of flint about 1 foot in size, and he wacked the corner and got a flake about 6 inches long and 3 inches wide and it sliced through the leather like a razor blade. Signaturepete >The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, >cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather >using a flake knife that he made on the spot for the task. >He had cubic chunk of flint about 1 foot in size, and he wacked >the corner and got a flake about 6 inches long and 3 inches wide >and it sliced through the leather like a razor blade. Precisely. Lee Olsen should really have looked at my address; I am talking about precisely the quality of flint that is found in the area that the paper was referring to. Even an ACCIDENTAL break will often produce flakes that are literally razor sharp - I have cut my (horny) hands on such flakes without feeling pain, so I suspect that those flakes were actually sharper than a commercial razor blade. Making flint tools to order, making ones that keep an edge, and so on - now, THOSE need skill. But the idea that even the crudest form of knapping can't produce a razor sharp edge is simply wrong. Regards, Nick Maclaren. > >The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, > >cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Precisely. Lee Olsen should really have looked at my address; You should really have spent more time actually reading my post, rather than looking at the address. By doing so you would not have painted yourself into the corner that you are now in. > I am > talking about precisely the quality of flint that is found in the > area that the paper was referring to. I do not know where Ebbsfleet is in relation to Brandon, but I have worked Brandon flint which has the reputation of being the highest quality flint found in the British Isles, and even then Brandon flint must be dug from underground quarries and must be fresh and of the darkest color to be of the highest knapping quality. If the Ebbsfleet material were superior in its cutting properties than the obsidian that I predominantly use, then this material would be used in making surgical blades that some hospitals have used to do experimental operations (successfully I might add), rather than the obsidian that I use. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done, but my data is somewhat out of date, maybe someone has tried hospital approved operations with flint more recently. > Even an ACCIDENTAL break will > often produce flakes that are literally razor sharp - I have cut my > (horny) hands on such flakes without feeling pain, so I suspect What you "suspect" is not a demonstration of fact. > that > those flakes were actually sharper than a commercial razor blade. Only in your imagination. Unless, as I stated before, you have found a manufacture of an inferior product. > Making flint tools to order, making ones that keep an edge, and so > on - now, THOSE need skill. But the idea that even the crudest form > of knapping can't produce a razor sharp edge is simply wrong. Repeating your erroneous thinking will not prove your case. You are making the same error that Pete and many others make for that matter. Each and every example you two have given can equally be said for a razor. So your cut pinkie still does not prove the flint edge is *as* sharp as a razor, only that a flint edge will cut your finger or Pete's leather pad. That still doesn't make a hammer-struck flint sharp as a razor. For some reason you seem afraid to deal with all the statements you cut out of my post. Perhaps you were too busy reading my address and didn't see them. I will repeat what Kaz stated since you missed it the first time: "Flake knives are often razor-sharp." I stated that the Mayans could do this with "pressure" but they did not represent one trillionth of the total knives ever made in the stone age. The word Kaz used was "often" and that is simply false. The issue was from the start and still is: "Acheulean" and their methods. You now want to inject "ACCIDENTAL" into the mix. So now "often" becomes changed to accidental. OK, fair enough, since I used the term "never." Science is about tests. I suggested you try shaving with your "ACCIDENTAL" flake. Well, if that sounds too dangerous for you, try this. See if your flint flake will cut a single letter off a newspaper without cutting through the paper. I have NEVER been able to do this with a hard or soft hammer produced obsidian flake. My straight razor does this easy. I have no doubt that the Mayans or Don Crabtree could do this with their blades, but that wasn't the issue. Since this is a sci. list, I want to see you do the newspaper test. Prove your point. This test will separate the men from the boys (and the lip service from the facts) and anyone can do this safely at home. If you pass, then we can get down to the more professional tests. Waiting patiently, Lee Olsen > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. >> >The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, >> >cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >> Regards, >> Nick Maclaren. The books have said for years that glass produces the sharpest edge peroid. Flint is still harder than steel and good flint will produce an edge sharper than steel. That isn't even worth debating or researching. It is common knowledge. The next thing you need to know is Lee is never wrong or if he is he won't conceed the point this side of death. He will try various methods to talk you into giving up and going away. Bearing in mind that talking to a wall is a waste this is often the best choice. > >> >The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, > >> >cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > The books have said for years that glass produces the sharpest edge peroid. Are you on drugs? You are more confused than usual. One of your unnamed books may have said obsidian will break out to a micron under certain controlled conditions, far beyond the methods known during Acheulian times. But glass? Please cite your source. > Flint is still harder than steel and good flint will produce an edge sharper > than steel. Only under the conditions I've explained above, several times now. Go back to church-----learn how to stop lying about what other people say. > That isn't even worth debating or researching. Wonderful, I never said any different. What I did was qualify how these miraculous edges occur, something your books forgot to tell you. What part of the word "pressure" are you to stupid to understand? >It is common > knowledge. Yes, it is common knowledge that you like to cut out of context what was actually said. > The next thing you need to know is Lee is never wrong or if he is > he won't conceed the point this side of death. > > He will try various methods What method is that? Citing Don Crabtree? >to talk you into giving up and going away. > Bearing in mind that talking to a wall is a waste this is often the best > choice. Nice line, spoken by the same person who fabricated a total lie about Mary Leaky, then lied about a non-existent citation in Scientific American. Yes, we know your type. deowll wrote Feb. 6, 7:30 pm "The books have said for years that glass produces the sharpest edge peroid. Flint is still harder than steel and good flint will produce an edge sharper than steel. That isn't even worth debating or researching. It is common knowledge." Obsidian (an igneous material) IS glass, volcanic glass. A dense volcanic glass, usually rhyolite in composition and typically black in color. Compared with window glass, obsidian is rich in iron and magnesium; tiny (<.005 mm) crystals of iron oxide within the glass cause its dark color. web.mit.edu/akciz/www/glossary/dictionaryframe_o.htm Both obsidian and window glass are produced when silica (and minor quantities of other material impurities) is superheated and allowed to rapidly cool with minimal to no crystal growth occurring. Obsidian can produce an edge sharper than flint or steel. Flint is a fine-grained crypto-crystalline sedimentary rock, also mostly silica that is usually found in association with limestone . All this is common knowledge. But none of this has anything to do with whether the Clactonian flake-users at Ebbsfleet were culturally inferior to the handaxe makers who lived at the same time (the original issue before you guys all decided to one-up each other). The manner in which discussion here transforms so rapidly into personal attacks, it's little wonder real scientists avoid sci.anthropology.paleo. Dar > deowll wrote Feb. 6, 7:30 pm > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > A dense volcanic glass, that has some very different physical properties than man-made glass when considering potential edges. 1) Obsidian can't be tempered (heat treated) like annealed man-made glass or flint. 2) Obsidian can't be recycled like old bottles, broken mirrors etc. When heated to high temperatures that will melt glass, it just turns into something that resembles pumice. > usually rhyolite in composition and typically > black in color. Compared with window glass, obsidian is rich in iron [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > quantities of other material impurities) is superheated and allowed to > rapidly cool with minimal to no crystal growth occurring. Yet the two are still quite different. If you were talking to biologists, lumpers and splitters, the splitters would have enough evidence to claim a different glass species :-) > Obsidian can produce an edge sharper than flint or steel. This statement is deceptive and similar comments can be found in many text books and journal articles. It has very little meaning in the real world. This statement is also true: Steel can produce an edge sharper than obsidian or flint. It all depends on the circumstances of quality, skill, and what the end goal is. The fact that some obsidian has the *potential* (but seldom does) to feather out to one molecule or so is oblivious to the fact that such an edge is nearly worthless in all but the most specialized situations, like eye-ball surgery for instance. When butchering an elephant, touch one bone with a brittle obsidian or flint edge and you are eating silica flakes for supper. > Flint is a > fine-grained crypto-crystalline sedimentary rock, also mostly silica > that is usually found in association with limestone . All this is > common knowledge. Also, the journals and text books are about 10 years behind (common knowledge, except on this list) developments in modern tool steels which can now be sharpened into the micron range and can be made harder than either obsidian or flint. Initially obsidian may have a slight edge in sharpness but this edge doesn't last long in today's world for the majority of cutting tasks, sure, one can always find an exception. > But none of this has anything to do with whether the Clactonian > flake-users at Ebbsfleet were culturally inferior to the handaxe makers > who lived at the same time I think industrial creativity tells a lot about past cultures. If people are not up-to-date on tool efficiency in today's world with lithics or steel, how can any inferences possibly be drawn correctly about the past? > (the original issue before you guys all > decided to one-up each other). And rather than remain a shiny example, you decided to add to the one-up pollution also? > The manner in which discussion here > transforms so rapidly into personal attacks, it's little wonder real > scientists avoid sci.anthropology.paleo. Where have you been? You certainly haven't been paying much attention to Fiedel and Adovasio. You must have missed the brutal counter-attack Brown and Morwood made on their detractors. They certainly weren't very polite. Do you really think if journals were as free and open as this list they would look a lot different? The only thing that stops personal attacks is the fact that they are not allowed by the editors and if they did they are too short of space for a lot of extra words. Of the thousands of pros out there in the world, there is only a minuscule fraction that post on the moderated lists, so few seems to be the norm no matter how you look at it. > Dar Lee, Thanks for the clarification on osidian, etc., with which I have no objection. I agree that quality of the material and intended function determines its potential usefulness. I don't intend to be a shiny example or a one-upper; however I intend to remain polite and certainly tolerant of constructive criticism. Now then, concerning the question of Acheulean vs. Clactonian, given that an elephant can be butchered efficiently with either a flake knife or a handaxe (probably with the aid of a few other tools not specified in the news report), and that perhaps these industries could represent two different 'cultures' (an unresolved issue, despite what the news report says), do you or anyone else really think the Ebbsfleet evidence is sufficient to demonstrate two different species (something Stringer suggests) at work? Or that butchering with flake tools shows inferior cultural capability than butchering with a handaxe? IMO, even if the distinction of the industries eventually can be shown true, and if somehow or another, hominids could be assigned to the industries, this Acheulean vs. Clactonian issue really doesn't say very much of importance about whether one group 'out-competed' the other. But I'm open to comment suggesting otherwise if someone can find a good argument for it. I just don't see one group outcompeting another from the evidence so far reported from Ebbsfleet. Cheers, Dar <snip> > Now then, concerning the question of Acheulean vs. Clactonian, given > that an elephant can be butchered efficiently with either a flake knife [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is sufficient to demonstrate two different species (something Stringer > suggests) at work? We seem to be totally at the mercy of Jennifer Viegas and her ability to correctly report a story. But I do know one thing, Nick Ashton (also cited in the article) is well aware of all the latest arguments in the Acheulean vs. Clactonian debate. I would doubt that he is relying on "just" the Ebbsfleet data alone, assuming he was correctly cited. > Or that butchering with flake tools shows inferior > cultural capability than butchering with a handaxe? I agree, just flake evidence isn't going to do it. They are going to need a string of independent-collaborating evidence to make a case. Stringer added, "..... There are hints gleaned from comparing bits of their bones...." I wonder what the arguments from these "hints" of bones are? Do you keep up with Stringer and British Isles human finds---I do not. Any citations? > IMO, even if the distinction of the industries eventually can be shown > true, and if somehow or another, hominids could be assigned to the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > argument for it. I just don't see one group outcompeting another from > the evidence so far reported from Ebbsfleet. Seems to me like they would have to prove that the flake-only group disappeared and the biface-only group survived and kept on making primarily bifaces through some fair amount of time. Anyway, we have heard these types of debates before. Some of them had a comparative mountain of data rather than just "hints" (Stringer) and still ended up nowhere. Remember the Bordes/Binford debate? Bordes took the tribal (cultural) stance and Binford argued for a functional reason for the Mousterian facies problem. Or how about Mousterian equals Neandertals and Upper equals Hss? So I will agree with you that Stringer, Ashton, and Pitts will have an up-hill road proving their case with that little dab of evidence from Ebbsfleet. > Cheers, > Dar Lee (et al.), I hope you'll pardon my unorthodox method of answering, but I haven't yet figured out how to reply from the google website, yet still include and therefore be able to insert comment within the previous post. I'm not about to clutter my e-mail by joining the usenet option. If I can't participate from website-only, eventually I'll just drop out. So, until then.... Dar Habel wrote: <snip> Now then, concerning the question of Acheulean vs. Clactonian, given that an elephant can be butchered efficiently with either a flake knife or a handaxe (probably with the aid of a few other tools not specified in the news report), and that perhaps these industries could represent two different 'cultures' (an unresolved issue, despite what the news report says), do you or anyone else really think the Ebbsfleet evidence is sufficient to demonstrate two different species (something Stringer suggests) at work? [Lee Olsen replied Feb. 8, 10:28 pm] "We seem to be totally at the mercy of Jennifer Viegas and her ability to correctly report a story. But I do know one thing, Nick Ashton (also cited in the article) is well aware of all the latest arguments in the Acheulean vs. Clactonian debate. I would doubt that he is relying on "just" the Ebbsfleet data alone, assuming he was correctly cited." Nick Ashton is quoted in the Viegas article as saying: "I would now consider the possibility of a group of different people coming from a different part of Europe," Ashton said. "Not necessarily a different species, but a cultural interpretation is plausible." I agree that on current evidence (even before the Ebbsfleet discovery) that this possibility is a plausible interpretation. I will elaborate on this below. [Dar wrote] > Or that butchering with flake tools shows inferior > cultural capability than butchering with a handaxe? [Lee Olsen replied] "I agree, just flake evidence isn't going to do it. They are going to need a string of independent-collaborating evidence to make a case. Stringer added, "..... There are hints gleaned from comparing bits of their bones...." I wonder what the arguments from these "hints" of bones are? Do you keep up with Stringer and British Isles human finds---I do not. Any citations?" I keep up well enough to know that all British Isles pre-Ipswichian (pre-OIS 5e) human finds consist only of the Boxgrove (OIS 13, 524-478 ka, shinbone and two teeth associated with Acheulean handaxes), Swanscombe (ca. 400 ka; rear part of a cranium associated with Acheulean handaxes), and Pontnewydd (OIS 7, ca. 200 ka, fragmentary tooth and jaw remains). Only Boxgrove and Swanscombe seem relevant to the discussion at hand. These are Stringer's 'hints'. On a wider view, the question hinges on whether there were two different species in Europe about 400,000 years ago. There is a discussion of this possibility in: Svoboda, J., Lozek, V. & Vlcek, E. (1996). Hunters Between East and West: The Paleolithic of Moravia. New York: Plenum Press. Vlcek wrote chapter 3, and in it discusses the Bilzingsleben skulls, which he places in a taxon "Homo erectus bilzinglebenis", and others, which he assigns to "Homo sapiens steinheimensis". Leaving aside the question of validity, whether this relates to the Acheulean/Clactonian issue, I have: White, M.J. (2000). The Clactonian Question: On the interpretation of core-and-flake assemblages in the British Lower Paleolithic. Journal of World Prehistory. 14 (1): 1-63. This is an excellent summary of the historical arguments surrounding the issue. White generally seems to favor the 'two cultures' side of the question. But in a detailed investigation of the chronological issue, White found that when only the evidence of assemblages assigned to Acheulean and Clactonian which can be assigned to secure contexts, Clactonian always precedes the Acheulean, which then replaces it. The problem is that this does not occur once, but occurs in exactly the same sequence in two entirely separate interglacial stages. On White, 2000, Table 3, the stages are shown as "Early Hoxnian (OIS 11)" and "Late OIS 10/early OIS 9". One explanation given is that Clactonian might represent the earliest re-colonization of Britain (which would be emptied out during each glacial stage) by human groups from Central Europe which did not use handaxes, followed by a replacement of Western European handaxe makers during the optimum part of the interglacial. This would be the point at which "two species" might be invoked, as Vlcek suggests above. [Dar wrote] > IMO, even if the distinction of the industries eventually can be shown > true, and if somehow or another, hominids could be assigned to the > industries, this Acheulean vs. Clactonian issue really doesn't say very > much of importance about whether one group 'out-competed' the other. > But I'm open to comment suggesting otherwise if someone can find a good > argument for it. I just don't see one group outcompeting another from > the evidence so far reported from Ebbsfleet. [Lee replied] "Seems to me like they would have to prove that the flake-only group disappeared and the biface-only group survived and kept on making primarily bifaces through some fair amount of time." Yes. But this apparently happened twice - once during each of the successive interglacials of OIS 11 and OIS 9, the "replacements" apparently separated by more than 50,000 years. Once OIS 8 occurred, and the British Isles were again deserted, OIS 7 follows with industries containing Levalloisian elements which are usually not assigned to either Acheulean or Clactonian. So the whole issue of Clactonian/Acheulean replacement has been concluded by the time of OIS 8. [Lee Olsen wrote] "Anyway, we have heard these types of debates before. Some of them had a comparative mountain of data rather than just "hints" (Stringer) and still ended up nowhere. Remember the Bordes/Binford debate? Bordes took the tribal (cultural) stance and Binford argued for a functional reason for the Mousterian facies problem. Or how about Mousterian equals Neandertals and Upper equals Hss? So I will agree with you that Stringer, Ashton, and Pitts will have an up-hill road proving their case with that little dab of evidence from Ebbsfleet." Yes they will. I'd like to know more about what actually was found at Ebbsfleet (apparently the basis of the media reports is an article in British Archaeology, but their website doesn't yet have it listed online). But I doubt if the evidence contains much that is new regarding the issue these guys have been arguing for decades. Rather, it seems to me more like someone merely has taken the opportunity of the Ebbsfleet discovery to hype one side of the issue. I would have preferred the article emphasizing not that "the evidence suggests" that competition and replacement occurred, but that the evidence suggests a "possibilty" that this occurred. This possibilty was recognized long before Ebbsfleet, but I doubt if Ebbsfleet adds evidence to make it a probability. Dar > Lee (et al.), > > I hope you'll pardon my unorthodox method of answering, but I haven't > yet figured out how to reply from the google website, yet still include > and therefore be able to insert comment within the previous post. I'm > not about to clutter my e-mail by joining the usenet option. I've never used email to post to a Google group for that same reason. > If I > can't participate from website-only, eventually I'll just drop out. Needn't do anything that drastic (we can flame you better from right here :-). Some of the new Beta buttons are labeled a little deceptive as to what they are for. Give us some clues-like at what point does the posting from the sap web page start to go bad ? So, > until then.... I'll answer the rest of your post tomorrow, I'm re-reading some of the papers that I have from the Prehistoric Society on the Clactonian problem. <snip> > Dar The problem is that the "Reply" icon on the webpage message opens a box immediately below "Reply" where I can type whatever comment I want to make. The box initially is blank (empty). Below this box are icons for "Cancel", "Preview" and "Post". All this is easy enough, but I can't find instructions anywhere that tell me how to include the previous message in my reply. Nor can I see anything that gives me an option to remove other newsgroups from the reply. Therefore, I have to cut-and-paste the previous message and work from there to identify which words are posted by me, and which words are posted by you (or whoever). If I do not do this, a simple cut-and-paste, with my comment inserted, does not supply the chevrons that make it possible to distinguish the words of my reply from the words of the previous message. Hence, my unorthodox method. I didn't have this problem until google switched to this new system a few weeks ago, and I haven't been able to figure out whatever it is I'm missing. Dar > The problem is that the "Reply" icon on the webpage message opens a box > immediately below "Reply" where I can type whatever comment I want to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > until google switched to this new system a few weeks ago, and I haven't > been able to figure out whatever it is I'm missing. Do not sign in on the web site. Go right to the threads list, click on the thread you want, then the persons post you want, open and hit reply. THEN a box will open and ask you for your email/pass word. Click and you should see the former message & attribution marks in the box. > Dar > The problem is that the "Reply" icon on the webpage message opens a box > immediately below "Reply" where I can type whatever comment I want to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dar Find your equivalent of 'account settings' and select 'composition' from the drop down list. There should be a setting there to quote the entire message you're responding to. If you don't want to include the entire message in your reply you can edit out those parts you don't want. --RC > Dar Habel wrote: > <snip> > Nick Ashton is quoted in the Viegas article as saying: > "I would now consider the possibility of a group of different people > coming > from a different part of Europe," Ashton said. "Not necessarily a > different > species, but a cultural interpretation is plausible." It seems that Ashton has changed his mind over the years. > I agree that on current evidence (even before the Ebbsfleet discovery) > that this possibility is a plausible interpretation. I will elaborate [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > which he places in a taxon "Homo erectus bilzinglebenis", and > others, which he assigns to "Homo sapiens steinheimensis". Thanks. So it probably is not very likely Stringer is hiding any smoking guns in the biology department. So the weight of the argument will primarily be on the flakes and sea levels. > Leaving > aside the question of validity, whether this relates to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > core-and-flake assemblages in the British Lower Paleolithic. Journal > of World Prehistory. 14 (1): 1-63. Well, you just one-upped me here :-). I have: White, Mark J. & Danielle C. Schreeve (2000). Island Britain-Peninsula Britian: Palaeogeography, Colonisation, and Lower Paleolithic Settlement of the British Isles. Preceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, pp. 1-28 Your paper seems to be the one where he argues his lithics ideas. The paper I have (b ?) is primarily climatic data, but he does cite back to (White 2000 [a ?]) when he comments on lithics. > This is an excellent summary of the historical arguments surrounding > the issue. I will be sure to take a look at this paper Saturday when I go the library. > White generally seems to favor the 'two cultures' side > of the question. But in a detailed investigation of the chronological > issue, White found that when only the evidence of assemblages assigned > to Acheulean and Clactonian which can be assigned to secure contexts, > Clactonian always precedes the Acheulean, which then replaces it. OK, in the paper I have he admits data is slim here. > The problem is that this does not occur once, but occurs in exactly the > same sequence in two entirely separate interglacial stages. And Paul Mellars has far more sites in his data bank than White and he also says MTA (Mousterian Acheulean) always follows Charentian (flake) sites in France. Mellars seems to favor the 'traditions' angle, but I don't know if he is really saying two separate cultures. > On White, > 2000, Table 3, the stages are shown as "Early Hoxnian (OIS 11)" and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This would be the point at which "two species" might be invoked, as > Vlcek suggests above. But if the same type of cycling occurred later in time and no one seems to be arguing two separate species----why would one need to have two species to account for the phenomenon? What happened to Occam's razor? Why can't two species make the same tools like the Neandertal vs Hss (as Stringer argues) in the Levant? > [Dar wrote] > > IMO, even if the distinction of the industries eventually can be [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Clactonian/Acheulean replacement has been concluded by the time of OIS > 8. I don't think it matters what names are given to industries. Bifacial industries have alternated with flake industries in numerous parts of the world at different times when we know different species or cultures weren't involved. > [Lee Olsen wrote] > "Anyway, we have heard these types of debates before. Some of them [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > it seems to me more like someone merely has taken the opportunity of > the Ebbsfleet discovery to hype one side of the issue. Sure, no doubt press-release archaeology sells magazines and influences dig-money budgets. > I would have > preferred the article emphasizing not that "the evidence suggests" that > competition and replacement occurred, but that the evidence suggests a > "possibilty" that this occurred. This possibilty was recognized long > before Ebbsfleet, but I doubt if Ebbsfleet adds evidence to make it a > probability. Progress is certainly being made. In the same issue of Prehistoric Society cited above, Wenban-Smith et al., helped shoot down a couple of previously suggested notions about the manufacturing/use of hand axes. 1) in spite of having an excellent flint source nearby (only 150 m ), the makers at a site called Red Barns made beautiful axes on poor material. This is bad news for those who claim lack of good raw material translates into flake assemblages and high quality material equates to well-made bifaces. 2) Red Barns is also another site where axes were made at the site and then hauled away to be discarded elsewhere. Anyway, if you haven't seen this issue of Proceedings, there are three good papers on the Clactonian problem. Now that I have re-read Roe's paper, I can see why Ashton has changed his mind over the years. Simply better and more data that separates what used to be thought of as an evolving industry is no longer true. I certainly want to read the paper you cited, I saw some hints in White's paper that I really didn't agree with, but he didn't elaborate on the idea, just cited his earlier paper. > Dar |> > Science is about tests. I suggested you try shaving with your |> > "ACCIDENTAL" flake. Well, if that sounds too dangerous for you, try [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] |> > the facts) and anyone can do this safely at home. If you pass, then we |> > can get down to the more professional tests. Been there - done that. What's the problem? I did that when checking how sharp the edges of those flakes were. It was most interesting. They were easily SHARP enough, but they weren't STRONG enough - i.e. I couldn't use them gently enough to stop them breaking up. The experimentation I did convinced me that the key to flint knapping is not in just producing sharp edges, but in producing a tool of a useful shape that will keep those edges for a reasonable period of actual use. I lack that skill. This is very relevant to sci.anthropology.paleo, because it shows that flint knapping needed no precursor technology - i.e. randomly broken flints are useful enough to start people breaking them deliberately. Which I have done (as a NON-knapper) when I wanted to cut string and couldn't be bothered to fetch a knife or scissors; it worked, if not brilliantly. |> > Waiting patiently, Your patience has been rewarded. You may now rejoice. |> The books have said for years that glass produces the sharpest edge peroid. |> Flint is still harder than steel and good flint will produce an edge sharper |> than steel. That isn't even worth debating or researching. It is common |> knowledge. The next thing you need to know is Lee is never wrong or if he is |> he won't conceed the point this side of death. I have begun to notice that :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. > |> > Science is about tests. I suggested you try shaving with your > |> > "ACCIDENTAL" flake. Well, if that sounds too dangerous for you, try [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Been there - done that. Great, now there is something to whittle on. > What's the problem? Which test to do next-see below. > I did that when checking how sharp the edges of those flakes were. > It was most interesting. They were easily SHARP enough, but they > weren't STRONG enough - i.e. I couldn't use them gently enough to > stop them breaking up. Yes, not only will bone break an edge, even gristle will chip the edges of a tool. This is not necessarily bad as far as butchering properties go, just bad for eye-ball surgery and the person eating meat peppered with tiny flakes. > The experimentation I did convinced me that > the key to flint knapping is not in just producing sharp edges, but > in producing a tool of a useful shape that will keep those edges > for a reasonable period of actual use. I lack that skill. Depends again on what you are trying to cut. If you are trying to break an optimum angle from a parent block, then yes, skill is definitely a big factor. But one can cheat. You can completely dull an as-struck edge with a rock abrader to whatever thickness desired, then with an antler-tine, pressure flake the edge. This strengthens the edge and you can hold up Pete's leather pad and still slice cleanly through it. Bonus, the effective cutting edge has lengthened because it is serrated, so it will last longer. Great for the butcher shop, but gone is the original edge. This technique can be learned in an hour, but you won't make a neat Scottsbluff with an hours practice. > This is very relevant to sci.anthropology.paleo, You bet, different materials have different cutting qualities. Where you are at there wasn't much choice, but in Africa a million or two years ago the hominids had an uncanny knack for choosing the right lithic material for the right task, long as they had a choice. Since flakes are 90% of the paleo record, being able to decode efficiency is kind of like having a Rosetta lithic. These are clues to brain evolution. > because it shows > that flint knapping needed no precursor technology - i.e. randomly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Your patience has been rewarded. You may now rejoice. Not only will my straight razor pass the test, but so will my massed-produced-out-of-the-box folding pocket knife. I happen to know something about the factory that made this knife. By today's standards it is a relatively cheap knife. The steel is commercial-grade stainless made in Japan. It was sharpened by hand on a 220 grit, 2 inch wide belt sander. No other retouch was done to the edge at the factory or by me. The edge is 22 degrees near as I can measure it. You may now rejoice, you have demonstrated you have a flint flake that is pocket knife sharp. Which is doing better than the soft hammer flakes that I'm making, but still you have not demonstrated your fortuitously-struck flake is razor sharp. When someone says razor sharp, I think who's razor, who's steel and who sharpened it? There is a 100% consensus on this list (thread) and in the journals that "highest quality" material is a key ingredient to success in lithic sharpness. Unless one wants to compare apples to oranges, the same applies to steel also. Commercial razors and surgeons scalpels are literally made from low-grade junk steel compared to the recent advances in state-of-the-art powered metallurgy. These steels are far to costly for throw away use. So now back to the problem of what kind of a test will prove your flint flake (which is apparently of better quality than any lithic material made in America) is *razor sharp* and also be fair to those who know how to build and sharpen a razor? What else will your flake cut? Maybe you will actually force me to go sharpen my razor ;-) Meanwhile I'll see if there are any local knappers around with some English flint that I can use to see if I can duplicate your results. > |> The books have said for years that glass produces the sharpest edge peroid. > |> Flint is still harder than steel and good flint will produce an edge sharper [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Regards, > Nick Maclaren. > >> >The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, > >> >cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > The books have said for years That's a circular argument. The books said for years Ramapithecus represented a direct ancestor of humans. But science is always open to critical review; otherwise, if what the books said were always true, we wouldn't need science anymore. Well, the books were wrong. > that glass produces the sharpest edge peroid. A nonsensical statement that confuses how the paleo stone-age never was with the manufacturing processes that goes on in medical-research laboratories. Besides being no longer true (glass knives have been surpassed by the diamond edge), lab ultra edges, however, are great for sectioning butterfly antennae---- 100% worthless for butchering elephants (topic of post number 1 of this thread). http://tinyurl.com/6p8g6 A Micro Star edge radius is about 2 nm or 12 carbon atoms. http://tinyurl.com/6x9xu 3.4-4.3 nm for the glass knives. > Flint is still harder than steel http://www.northwestjournal.ca/IX3945.htm "a typical knife blade is around 5½, and tool steel is about 6½ (Hamilton et. al., 1975)." http://www.eskimo.com/~knapper/HotStuff.html "These very small quartz crystals of similar size give flint its conchoidal fracture with a hardness similar to quartz (6.5 to 7 on the hardness scale) and a durability greater than obsidian." http://www.gordonengland.co.uk/hardness/mohs.htm "Some examples of the hardness of common metals in the Moh's scale are copper between 2 and 3 and tool steel between 7 and 8." c2004 Summing up the above: Moh's scale Tool steel <1975 = about 6 1/2 Flint = 6.5 to 7 Tool steel-currently (powered metallurgy) = 7 to 8 (+) And we don't even have to go here: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2002/1223/284.html Flint is harder than steel eh? Notice the date Hamilton, 1975. Isn't that about the same time the Ramapithecus ='s direct ancestor to homo hypothesis fell apart? > and good flint will produce an edge sharper > than steel. And "deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <lbUMd.16631$qJ3.4139@bignews1.bellsouth.net> "Good flint is mostly silica and is sharper than the best steel when properly flaked and unworn." Since your book derived "common knowledge" on flint being harder than steel just got dulled, it might be wise to get up-to-date on whether it can be "properly flaked" as sharp as the best steel also. "If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish over at sci.arch. An edge considered sharp in one situation may be totally useless in another. It totally depends on the situation. So a overly-simplistic statement like "glass is sharper" is meaningless. Butterfly antennae are one thing, dry African hardwoods are quite another. The definition of *sharp* then, depends entirely on what is to be cut. > That isn't even worth debating or researching. Particularly when you are totally confused as to what was being debated in the first place. Hard-hammer/soft-hammer percussion is not used in medical labs to produce 4 nm edges on glass for a good reason (Crabtree 1969) and glass/obsidian isn't flint (no matter what the silica content) as these two URLs demonstrate. http://chemistry.boisestate.edu/rbanks/glassblowing/glassblowing_history.htm http://www.eskimo.com/~knapper/HotStuff.html > It is common > knowledge. What was "common knowledge" 100, or even 30, years ago is not necessarily true today. Metallurgy has advanced, but flint is still the same old flint. Steels can be made much harder than flint today, so there is no reason to believe that steel can't be made sharper either----or at least sharper than hard hammer/soft hammer struck flint, which is what my claim was in the first place. > The next thing you need to know is Lee is never wrong or if he is > he won't conceed the point this side of death. And books are never wrong is a better argument? "If he is?" Since your statement that "Flint is still harder than steel" has been proven false, I wonder just what point I need to "conceed" before I die? > He will try various methods to talk you into giving up and going away. > Bearing in mind that talking to a wall is a waste this is often the best > choice. Walls are built by people who read 30-year-old books and believe the information in them is good forever. > > > > It also makes mince meat out of Jennifer's statement > > > > "Butchering an elephant with a flake knife would be comparable to > > > > trying to cut into a juicy steak with a rock. > > No, it would literally be cutting a juicy steak with a rock. And ditto with her sleek handaxe, I wonder what her point was? > > But the situation can get very complicated if we were to change her > > statement to "steak bone" instead of "juicy steaks." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The guy who got me started flint knapping, Bob Berg, And Bob Berg has published the results of his lithic-cutting experiments in which peer-reviewed journal? > cut out my leather palm pad from a big piece of leather > using a flake knife that he made on the spot for the task. > He had cubic chunk of flint about 1 foot in size, and he wacked > the corner and got a flake about 6 inches long and 3 inches wide > and it sliced through the leather I have never said an as-stuck edge could not cut through leather. So what is your point? > like a razor blade. *Like* is not the same *as* Your simple (and very inadequate) example does not demonstrate that the edge of Bob Berg's flint is razor sharp. A *dull* razor will also cut thick leather just as easily. > Prehistoric Knives Suggest Humans Competed > By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cut into a juicy steak with a rock. If diners could use sleeker, sharper > axes, why wouldn't they? Because the flakes are at sharper than the best steel razor blades ever made? > A number of experts think that the Stone Age flake knife users were > distinct [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > a shinbone, a couple of teeth, pieces of a skull that probably belonged to > one of our early, apish ancestors, and Stone Age flake knives and axes. Only in the skull shape and the brain was 90% of modern if If recall correctly. You might be as little smarter but who knows? > The axes demonstrate an early form of technology called Acheulean, which > is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tools > resemble rocks with edges. And most people who don't know how sharp those edges are immeadiatly cut themselves on a new flake the first time they handle one. > Mike Pitts, editor of British Archaeology magazine, agreed with Stringer, > although Pitts said he thought that the flake knife users, called [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of > knapping tools." But if good flint is in short supply you can get a lot more cutting edge from flakes using the same core. > Nick Ashton, an archaeologist at the British Museum, thinks that the flake > knife fanciers might have been foreign. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050131/knifefight.html ... >> Pitts continued, "When you're a good knapper, as these guys were, >> knocking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But if good flint is in short supply you can get a lot more cutting edge > from flakes using the same core. On the contrary. One of the advantages identified for successive tool technologies - including Acheulean hand-axes over Oldowan flakes, is that you get more cutting edge per KG of rock... Ross Macfarlane > ... > >> Pitts continued, "When you're a good knapper, as these guys were, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > On the contrary. One of the advantages identified for successive tool > technologies No advantageous successive tool technologies have ever been identified during the stone age. > - including Acheulean hand-axes over Oldowan flakes, is that > you get more cutting edge per KG of rock... Wrong. Not without utilizing the flakes made d |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message