33628Re: [AAT] He: hand axes
- Feb 1, 2006On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:33:39 -0300, "Gerard Michael Burns"
>> - I would question his assertion that handaxes "were found at theirI would agree that, in common sense terms, 'local' and 'source' are
>> quarry (material source)", when he defines 'local' as less than 40 km.
>> That's too great a distance to claim the material is at source.
>Local and "source" are two different things. I don't recall if he stated it
>badly or not, but from other sources I know that some sources for the
>appropriate rocks are literally littered with cores, some only minimally
two different things. 'Source' must surely be the exact location where
the material is found naturally, or somewhere very close, while
'local' is somewhat broader.
But he explicitly conflates the two things. He says in the same
paragraph: "... I define a lithic container as '...a core of *local*
material, which means it is found at the *quarry*...' " and, while
asserting that a handaxe is indeed a lithic container "... [the
Acheulean handaxe] is a crude, early stage biface found at the
*source* of the lithic material...".
Maybe he expresses it badly, but the clear interpretation I derive
from the whole paragraph is that 'local', 'quarry' and 'source' are to
him (essentially) the same thing, and elsewhere he defines 'local' as
40km or less. That is what I dispute (not his definition of local,
which is a matter of personal judgment, but the jump from 'quarry' and
'source' to 'local' and therefore up to 40 km from the actual source).
The impression I got is that he is trying to support his thesis that
Homo erectus simply went to a source of suitable material, produced
the required flakes in situ, abandoned the used core (handaxe) and
then moved on carrying the flakes.
I don't find that very plausible. Clearly some sites fall into that
category, but equally clearly there are other places where handaxes
(whether as raw material or finished tools) were carried in from some
distance away (up to 40km by his own description).
The article is a nice piece of work, and there are some interesting
ideas in it, but I think it is too simplistic to propose that handaxes
in general result from one single process or motivation. Some may be
nothing more than discarded cores, but some clearly involve more work
than that. Some were knapped where the source material was found, some
were not. Some were retouched after use. Some were clearly used as
cutting tools, some were not. Some may have been thrown as hunting
tools. As with most aspects of human evolution, the real answer may
well turn out to be very complicated.
My final thought is that any thesis which rests on the premise that
"since there is no fossil hand evidence to suggest otherwise, my
theory is intact" is in a fairly precarious position.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>