Content revised 170910 File last modified: 180216 Basic Stone Tools A Beginner's Guide for College Students Related Pages:, This page is intended to serve as a quick introduction to several kinds of Paleolithic stone tools referred to by prehistoric archaeologists. This page is devoted to stone points and blades, usually associated with hunting activities.
Other kinds of stone tools include various hammers and grinding basins, not described here. (Picture sources for this page are numbered in captions visible by holding your mouse over each picture and are expanded at the foot of the page.) Skip Directly to:,.
Overview Flakes and Cores Stone tools were made by taking a piece of stone and knocking off flakes, a process known as 'knapping.' When the flakes were used, the tools produced are referred to as ' flake tools.' When the core itself was used, it is referred to as a ' core tool.' (Naturally, smaller flakes could be removed from larger ones, so not all flakes came off of cores. Or alternatively, big flakes should be thought of as the cores for little ones struck from them.
Don't worry about it.) Both cores and flakes were used all through the stone age, but there was increasing emphasis on flake tools as time passed and techniques for controlled flaking improved. Percussion and Pressure Earliest stone tools, and those in which the stone knapper had least control over how the stone would break, were made by percussion flaking, that is, whacking a stone with something —usually another stone, appropriately called a 'hammer stone.' Whacking with something slightly softer than stone —such as antler— allowed somewhat greater control in some cases. Even for the best percussion knappers, however, it was difficult to hit the target stone with perfect precision. Greater precision could be achieved by placing a piece of antler or other hard material precisely where you wanted pressure applied, and then whacking on that. This mediation allowed you to have precise targeting of force, and still have all the momentum of a falling hammer stone going into the movement.
This is called indirect percussion flaking. Still greater precision was achieved through pressure flaking (pressing against a stone until a flake pops off). Typically pressure flaking was used to remove very small chips (even extremely small ones), and was used, for example, to straighten and sharpen the edge of a blade. When pressure flaking was done with such materials as wood, bone, or antler, it was possible for skilled stone knappers to achieve truly excellent control over just how a stone would flake. These methods were normally combined, using percussion flaking to produce roughly the shape desired, followed by pressure flaking to finish the job. Materials Tools varied depending upon the stone available and its characteristics. Not all stone is equal.
Obviously sandstone is far too soft to take an edge. Marble is also too soft. Granite is inconsistent in its hardness and won't hold a sharp edge, and so on.
For most of the world's foraging societies, the preferred stone for most tools was whatever would take the sharpest edge, typically chert, flint or, where available, obsidian, which can be worked much like broken glass. (For other stones, see the section on, below.) (, ) Although obsidian flakes are capable of breaking with a startlingly sharp edge —sharper than steel— they do not retain the edge as steel does, so stone tools in actual use require constant sharpening, just as stringed instruments require constant tuning and dogs need constant feeding. They were sharpened by knocking off additional tiny chips along the edge, taking care to do it in such a way as to keep the edge reasonably straight. Naturally this technology became more refined over time. While earliest stone tools were little more than broken pebbles, the latest ones were sometimes miracles of controlled micro-chipping, culminating in the fantastically shaped 'eccentric flints' of some societies (notably Egypt and Mexico), which had lost all cutting function and were designed to show the stone knapper's skill and the owner's wealth. Choppers & Chopping Tools The term 'chopper' is applied to a stone, most often roughly spherical, from which several large flakes have been broken in order to produce a sharp edge or point.
Choppers are typically crude and typically early. The Oldowan technology, for example, is characterized by choppers. Most choppers use the natural breaks as cutting edges, but exhibit little retouching to lengthen the cutting edge beyond what is produced when a single flake is removed. The illustration at the right shows two views of the same chopper. In the upper view, a flake that has just been knocked off is laid beside the place from which it was struck. The lower view shows the pointed end of the chopper, as it would have looked from the perspective of the thing being chopped.
Many specialists distinguish between 'choppers' often with only a flake or two removed to sharpen an edge, and 'chopping tools' which have flakes removed from two sides of the cutting edge. While choppers were made by Homo habilis, bifacial 'chopping tools' are found with Homo erectus, and merge into hand axes. The chopping tool shown at left is from northern China, but is almost certainly much later than Homo erectus. Compared with the simple chopper above, notice how the skillful removal of a series of flakes has produced a nearly perfectly straight cutting edge. Hand-Axes Hand-axes are especially associated with the Acheulean tool tradition that followed Oldowan tools and was associated with Homo erectus life.
A hand-ax is in many ways simply a refined chopper. It is flatter and may be chipped all the way around. Smaller, better controlled flakes are removed, so that the cutting edges can be longer. Hand axes, like modern cleavers, had sufficient weight for heavy jobs, but good enough cutting edges for finer work, and were one of the most enduring tools in human history. The brown hand-ax shown in two views here is quite typical of Acheulean hand axes. The unchipped end would have been held in the hand, and the slight concavity on one side would have made an excellent finger grip. The other end was carefully retouched to provide a long sharp edge, although it was difficult to get a perfectly straight edge when it was produced by removing a series of small flakes.
The hand-ax shown at the left is the effort of a modern stone knapper to produce an imitation of a later, Mousterian (Neanderthal) hand-ax. He has tried to reproduce the greater attention to a straight edge, the greater number of small flakes removed, and the resultant greater utility of this implement.
However notice that the 'handle' end has disappeared. A tool sharpened on all sides might have greater utility by providing a range of blade-shapes, but it would have required protection for the hand that wielded it. Some specialists speculate that a piece of leather might have been used to protect the hand while manipulating such an implement. (More About, ) Knives & Scrapers A hand ax obviously is a general purpose tool, used for hacking, scraping, poking, and other actions requiring a strudy tool with a sharp edge.
But more specialized tools are part of early tool kits, even if we do not always know quite what they were used for. They tend to be named for their assumed functions, their shape, or a combination of both. Scrapers One of the special-purpose tools that emerges from earliest times is the scraper. One can think of this as designed to remove the yucky bits from the inside of animal skins, or the hair from the outside, but there are a great many scraping tasks involved also in vegetable preparation and in handling fibers for clothing —there is no reason to believe that all clothing was made of animal skins, after all. So we need to think of a scraper as a bit more all-purpose than the name at first implies. For most tasks, scrapers needed to have long flat cutting edges, usually slightly curved.
Nearly all are made from flakes rather than cores. Some are large and course, like the one shown above right, but many, especially in later times, were made of relatively small flakes, like the modern stone knapper's imitation shown at left, which is only about two inches long, and has been sharpened on one end for use in small tasks. Scrapers were specialized to various uses. Smoothing the sides of an arrow might require a notched scraper, for example, like the one at the right. For many purposes one can imagine them being fitted with handles, like the modern reproduction shown below under 'hafting.' Scraping out a dish-shaped hollow might require a more defined curve, and so on.
Not surprisingly museums are full of scrapers that appear to have been specialized in various ways, at least until they were grabbed for use for some other task. Burins The action of scraping is closely similar to the action of scoring, and a specialized kind of scraper was the burin, which had a barb sticking out the side. The barb made it possible to cut a long slot in a piece of wood or antler (or anything else). One important Upper Paleolithic use for burins was to cut two long narrow slots in a piece of bone or ivory and then carefully break out the piece between the two slots for use as a needle, one of the critical inventions in the history of clothing. Any slight bulge carelessly left on the side of a scraper can allow it to function as a burin, so the line between scrapers and burins is often difficult to draw. The 'burin' shown here, with the small barb on the lower-left side, was found out of context. It may or may not have been intended to be a burin (depending on whether the barb was deliberate).
For that matter, it may or may not actually be prehistoric. The three 'scrapers' in the picture above all have small barbs which might justify calling them 'burins' for some prehistorians. Awls & Projectile Points Punching holes in leather is a common enough challenge that many modern pocket knives include an awl, merely a pointed piece of metal, often out a sharpened blade on the side. The pirate bay online. Some Upper Paleolithic stone tools have roughly this shape and are usually identified as serving largely this purpose. The prehistoric black one and the modern yellow one shown here are examples. However, the barb on some burins is quite large, and therefore burins and awls grade into each other. The awls shown here might be classed as burins by some prehistorians.
Far more complex are the points used in hunting, including arrowheads, spear points, and the like. These have been found in a wide range of shapes and sizes —what was needed to kill a bird with an arrow was different from what was needed to kill a bison with a spear— and the points were made of a range of kinds of stone, depending on what was locally available. In general, a wee point —one the size of your fingernail— is an arrowhead, while anything larger than your thumbnail is heavy enough to be a nuisance on an arrow, and is probably a spear point. (Some arrows were simply pointed wood. See below.) Since a skilled stone knapper can produce an arrowhead, say, quite quickly, but may take much longer to produce a straight, feathered arrow, it was usual among hunters to use a two-part arrow shaft. The front portion or 'foreshaft' had the point hafted to it.
It was then fitted to the main shaft. This arrangment facilitated retrieval of the labor-intensive main shafts even if a foreshaft was lost, as well as allowing a hunter to carry many specialized points with only a handful of arrows. The picture at the right shows a foreshaft attached to a main shaft. It has been bound for reinforcement where the two meet.
Archaeologists have created typologies based on both form and function to help in reconstructing the history of human settlements in particular regions. A separate page on contains illustrations of some common projectile points found in North America. For present purposes, the examples given there can illustrate the genre. Terms frequently used for specialized kinds of points associate them with thrusting spears (heavier points), with throwing spears (which must be lighter), with arrows (used with bows), with darts (used with atlatls and blowguns), with harpoons (with separable handles), and with leisters (with multiple prongs). Hafting a stone point to the shaft (or foreshaft) of the spear or arrow has traditionally been done by wedging it in and tying it down with animal sinews or plant fibers and/or through the use of bitumen.
Stone Tools Made By Early Man Information
The picture at the right shows two different ways in which North American arrow heads were shaped with notches to facilitate hafting. Both arrows were intended for use in hunting deer. An arrow's wooden shaft is usually thick enough that, even if it is carefully bevelled, it protrudes beside the blade enough to slow down the arrow as it enters the animal's hide. The arrow shown at left was made to sell to tourists; its clumsy hafting would be inefficient in real hunting.
It is obvious that projectile points require hafting, that is, fastening to the end of a spear, arrow, dart, or whatever. (An arrow head without the arrow is not entirely useless, but it won't work as an arrowhead that way.) But hafting was not limited to spear and projectile points. Except for earliest choppers and hand axes, most stone tools were likely fitted with handles. Scrapers and knives in various shapes might be left unsharpened or deliberately dulled on one edge to avoid cutting the user's hand.
For some purposes this works well. However for other tasks or with other shapes, handles work better. They are only rarely preserved, but it is pretty clear how they worked. The stone was mounted in a handle by tying or by using tar or resin. The picture at the left shows a Neolithic scraper forced into a handle made of a large bone.
The modern copy of a very similar stone scraper on the right shows how it would have been forced into a wooden handle and then tightly tied in with rawhide (as was done by the Monongahila of southwestern Pennsylvania into the XIXth century). The beautifully made modern 'pizza knife' shown below, based on Upper Paleolithic French archaeological finds, illustrates how a blade would have been tied, using animal sinew or plant fiber, to a handle made of horn. Blades 'Blade' is arbitrarily defined by most archaeologists as a tool that is at least twice as long as it is wide, with sides roughly parallel. It would be reasonable to say that it is also a very thin tool. Blade tools appear in the Upper Paleolithic. They were made by detaching the longest possible flake from a core, and then carefully retouching the edges of it as necessary to achieve exactly the shape and cutting edge needed. Blades required a considerable degree of skill to produce without breaking, since they were thin enough to be fragile.
In use, blades were, so far as we know, usually hafted to wooden or antler handles, and by late Paleolithic times it was not unusual to use a series of quite small blades, lined up in a slot in a piece of wood or antler and glued in with naturally occurring tar (bitumen) or tree resin. By the close of the Paleolithic such 'microflints' became typical tool parts. In Europe prehistoric archaeologists identify a stage they call the 'Mesolithic,' characterized by the dominance of microflints. A famous example is the Azilian archaeological tradition. Blades were critical for making deep holes, including deep wounds in prey animals, but they were also useful in other ways, and represented a huge improvement in the amount of cutting edge that could be gotten from a piece of superior stone. (One estimate suggests that two pounds of stone provides about four inches of cutting edge as a handax, but up to 75 feet of cutting edge when turned into blades. That is an increase of about 225 times.
It is important to remember that cutting edge length is not the only property that matters in tools, of course. If it were, our kitchens would have only long knives.) The blade tool seen above from both front and back in the illustration with the yellow background is quite typical for late Paleolithic times, and represents a considerable degree of skill in its production. The one with the red background is a modern imitation, made of high-grade obsidian.
Notice the intensive 'retouching' that sharpens the edge by removing tiny chips of stone. Materials Other Than Stone It is important to remember that we have stone tools because they are easily preserved. In contrast, especially for very early periods, it is rare for archaeologists to find examples of tools made of materials easily lost. Such items range from flexible plant fibers used for clothing, basketry, fencing, or shelter thatch, to dense but ultimately impermanent materials like wood, ivory, antler, or bone. Many, probably most, tools used in the Paleolithic were surely NOT made of stone.
The modern Amazonian toothed knife shown at right above is made of bone, with the teeth carefully notched into it. The modern Costa Rican arrow points shown at the left are wooden. The modern Icelandic 'letter opener' below right is made from a sheep's horn with a wooden handle (with bark partially removed and partially retained). The 'cutting' edges have not been sharpened but could have been. Similar tools made and used in the early Paleolithic would almost surely not survive to modern times. (We do in fact have some bone and wood tools from late Paleolithic times.) But even the earlier Lower Paleolithic surely had non-stone tools. It seems inconceivable that a form such as Homo habilis would have made the stone choppers that we find but would never have used a stick to pick his teeth, or that Homo erectus would have hunted with a stone-tipped thrusting spear, but would never have done anything with a pointed wooden pole.
We know that wood and bamboo can produce remarkably sharp points and that they are still used as skewers today. Why should we imagine skewers to be a modern or even an Upper Paleolithic discovery? Curators at the Wangfujing Paleolithic Site Museum in Beijing wisely included a life-sized waxwork (above) showing a wooden spear being sharpened with a stone scraper as a reminder of this. In fact, at that site (dated at 22,000 - 23,000 BC) a fair number of bone and wood tools were recovered, including the bone burin at the left below and the bone points (possibly awls) at the right. The picture at the left shows Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi) awls made from turkey bones from New Mexico, probably dating from about AD 1100.
The picture at the right shows a scraper made from an antelope leg bone, also Ancestral Puebloan. Although less durable, these bone artifacts are comparable in function to some of the stone ones shown higher up the page. We must also remember that most tools, whether of stone or of other materials, could serve many purposes, and that broken tools could sometimes still have utility as something other than what was originally intended, just as modern people use old toothbrushes to clean all sorts of non-teeth. Furthermore, some tools identical in form may originally have been intended for different functions. For example The modern Huron bone awl shown at right has been tied by a length of rawhide to the knuckle bone of a deer to create a children's 'ball and cup' or bilboquet game, considered by the Huron to teach patience as children try to master the difficult task of tossing the knuckle into the air and catching it on the awl point. If it had been found in a Paleolithic context, with the leather long since rotted away, it is unlikely that it would have been interpreted as a game. The best guess would have been that the awl was an awl, and that the pierced knuckle bone was possibly a bead.
Ground (Polished) Stone Chipping (knapping) is not the only way in which stone was processed in prehistoric times. Indeed, it was useful only with the most glass-like stones —flint, obsidian, and chert in particular— all of volcanic origin, where it was possible to knock or press off small flakes to leave a sharp edge. But some tasks, such as cutting down trees, do not require a sharp edge so much as heavier, sturdier tools.
The same rocks that have the sharpest edges when chipped, are too fragile for many heavy tasks. Slate, granite, schist, and limestone are difficult or even impossible to flake.
Toolmakers using these materials had to start by laboriously pecking the rock into the desitred shape, then finish the tool by grinding and polishing. Most of these early ground stone tools were made for woodworking —items like axes, chisels, and adzes. (Christopher J. Ellis 2013 'Paleoindian and Archaic Hunter-Gatherers' IN Marit K.
Muston & Susan M. Jamieson (eds) Before Ontario; The Archaeology of a Province. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Although many species display behavioural traditions, human culture is unique in the complexity of its technological, symbolic and social contents. Is this extraordinary complexity a product of cognitive evolution, cultural evolution or some interaction of the two? Answering this question will require a much better understanding of patterns of increasing cultural diversity, complexity and rates of change in human evolution. Palaeolithic stone tools provide a relatively abundant and continuous record of such change, but a systematic method for describing the complexity and diversity of these early technologies has yet to be developed.
Here, an initial attempt at such a system is presented. Results suggest that rates of Palaeolithic culture change may have been underestimated and that there is a direct relationship between increasing technological complexity and diversity. Cognitive evolution and the greater latitude for cultural variation afforded by increasingly complex technologies may play complementary roles in explaining this pattern.
1. Introduction Humans display evolved capacities for complex technological, symbolic and social action that are unique among extant species. But what exactly has evolved to produce these capacities? A prime candidate is the human brain, long viewed as the source of our distinctive ‘mental powers’ and the sine qua non of human uniqueness. However, early evolutionary theorists also recognized the importance of culture , in accounting for the complexity of modern human behaviour. More recently, it has been suggested that the full range of modern human behaviour may be explicable as a product of cumulative cultural evolution , and that key behavioural transitions in human prehistory reflect the dynamics of cultural, rather than biological, evolution.
To further dissect the complex interaction of human cognitive and cultural evolution, it will be necessary to better understand these patterns of prehistoric culture change. There is general agreement that human and animal ‘cultures’ are distinguished by the much greater diversity and complexity of the former.
What remains unclear is whether this difference arises from the increased fidelity of human cultural transmission , from the greater cognitive capacity of individual humans or from some complex interaction of the two. This is a difficult question to address because modern humans differ from even our closest living relatives on a wide array of interdependent somatic, cognitive and cultural dimensions. The question of which trait(s) may have had evolutionary/causal priority in human evolution is a historical one regarding developments that appear simultaneous from a comparative perspective. Archaeological evidence provides a complementary data source that is better positioned to answer questions about developments since the last common ancestor with Pan. Palaeolithic stone tools offer a relatively abundant and continuous record of technological change over the past 2.5 Myr, documenting the gradual expression of new behavioural capabilities. Exploitation of this evidence will depend on the development of increasingly robust inferential links between archaeological remains, past behaviours, and the necessary cognitive and cultural mechanisms supporting these behaviours. High on the list of tools needing to be developed is a systematic method for describing the complexity and diversity of Palaeolithic technologies.
Early Human Stone Tools
It might be supposed that 150 years of Palaeolithic archaeology had already solved this problem, and that the wealth of named cultures, ‘industries’ and ‘modes’ in the literature would be sufficient for comparison. Indeed, it has been argued that the longevity of the Oldowan and Acheulean Industries reflects an absence of cumulative cultural evolution in the Lower Palaeolithic ,. However, the nature of cultural variation in the Oldowan is a matter of ongoing debate , and many researchers do see evidence of progressive technological change within the Acheulean (e.g. One difficulty with classical archaeological approaches to technological variation has been a tendency to focus on the form of artefacts rather than on the processes that produced them. This is problematic because it conflates many potential sources of variation and because it is biological capacities and cultural ‘recipes’ that evolve, not artefact morphologies.
Analysis of the hierarchical organization of toolmaking action sequences may provide a better foundation for inferences about culture and cognition. (a) Oldowan (ca 2.6–1.4 Ma; figure 1a) The earliest known stone tools are assigned to the Oldowan Industry and consist of sharp stone flakes struck from cobble ‘cores’ by direct percussion with another stone (the ‘hammerstone’). Experimentally, Oldowan flake production minimally involves: (i) procurement of raw materials (both core and hammerstone) of appropriate size, shape and composition and (ii) actual flaking, including core examination, target selection, core positioning/support, hammerstone grip selection and accurate percussion. This may be represented by a tree diagram ( a) with six nested levels, ranging from the overall goal of flake production to specific manipulations of the core and hammerstone. Within this structure, certain discrete action ‘chunks’ can be repeated an indefinite number of times, as indicated by numbers 1, 2, n (dashed lines indicate optional elements, boxes enclose ‘collapsed’ action chunks where subordinate elements have been omitted to avoid crowding).
For example, previous authors have identified a ‘basic flake unit’ or ‘flake loop’ (here termed ‘flake detachment’), which is duplicated until some superordinate goal (e.g. Desired numbers of flakes of appropriate size and sharpness) is achieved. Similarly, a basic ‘raw material procurement’ chunk may be repeated until quality and quantity criteria are met. Such modular structure is an efficient and productive characteristic of hierarchical organization that has received much attention in the study of language under the heading of ‘discrete infinity’. It is made possible by the combination at a superordinate level of units that remain distinct at the subordinate level, a possibility that would be absent in a ‘flat’ behavioural chain. Lower Palaeolithic action hierarchies. Lines connect subordinate elements with the superordinate element they instantiate.
Dashed lines indicate optional elements, numbers indicate duplications of action elements and boxes enclose ‘collapsed’ action chunks whose subordinate elements have been omitted to avoid crowding. For example, in ( c) ‘recursive flaking (blank production)’ is an optional element of ‘quarrying’ that might be duplicated an unspecified number of times (1, 2, n). The subordinate elements of ‘recursive flaking’ are depicted in ( b) and omitted in ( c). ( d) Dagger, soft hammer production not allowed; asterisk, typically includes complex flake detachments. In this way, basic core manipulations (grasp, rotate) are combined in a superordinate process of core positioning, which is combined with an appropriate hammerstone grip and striking movement in the larger process of percussion, which is combined with the selection of an appropriate target in the process of flake detachment. At this level, it is possible that individual flake detachments might form a simple linear chain, with the location of each detachment being selected purely on the basis of current core affordances (produced in part by the immediately preceding detachments ). However, it is now clear from the archaeological record that some early Oldowan assemblages exhibit systematically biased patterns of flake detachment that are underdetermined by the morphological variability of Oldowan cores.
Examples , include removal of flakes predominantly from a single core surface (‘unifacially’) or alternately from two intersecting surfaces (‘bifacially’). This patterning implies some superordinate relationship between individual flake detachments, perhaps in the form of relatively complex ‘technological rules’ and conscious planning , but minimally involving a learned tendency to select targets in relation to the position of previous detachments (e.g.
Laterally adjacent, alternate face, same plane, etc.). This superordinate relationship between flake detachments is represented in a by the node labelled ‘flaking’. This added level of hierarchical organization allows for some diversity in Oldowan flake production patterns, however, the relation of such variation to ecological, functional and/or cultural factors remains to be further explored. (b) Early Acheulean (ca 1.6–0.9 Ma) Around 1.6 Ma, a number of technological innovations begin to appear in the archaeological record.
These include more elaborate methods of flake production, such as ‘hierarchical centripetal’ flaking and single-platform ‘Karari scraper’ cores , as well as the production of intentionally shaped Acheulean tools including ‘handaxes’ and ‘picks’. The new flake production methods are not technically considered part of the Acheulean, however, they are contemporaneous with the Early Acheulean and are considered here as part of the same general phenomenon of Lower Pleistocene technological change.
(i) Elaborate flake production (figure 1b) Karari scrapers are a distinctive artefact type known from the basal Okote Member (1.6–1.5 Ma) at Koobi Fora, Kenya, and are produced by removing flakes from around the circumference of large flake or fractured cobble. This is thought to be a particularly efficient way to generate useful flakes and to require a ‘higher degree of planning’ insofar as a morphologically suitable large flake or cobble fragment must first be produced with the intent for subsequent use as a core. The hierarchical centripetal method reported from the ST Site Complex (1.2–1.1 Ma) at Peninj, Tanzania, also appears to be aimed at the efficient production of useful flakes and similarly involves preparatory operations. In this case, one or more subordinate ‘preparatory’ flakes are removed from a lateral ‘preparation surface’ in order to establish an advantageous morphology for the removal of desired ‘primary’ flake from the ‘main surface’. These different forms of elaborate flake production reflect a similar underlying innovation in action organization: modification of the core specifically in order to enable subsequent flake detachments. This differs from bifacial and unifacial flaking patterns seen in the Oldowan in that modification, as an explicitly preparatory action, is actually embedded within the process of primary flake detachment.
As depicted in b, this involves inserting at least one subordinate instance of preparatory flake detachment within the primary flake detachment tree, much as in the ‘complex flake unit’ of Moore. This results in an increase from six to seven nested levels. In the case of Karari scraper cores, a single subordinate detachment is involved in the production of the initial large flake or split cobble, which is then iteratively flaked according to a particular (circumferential) pattern. In hierarchical centripetal flaking, one or more subordinate flakes are removed in order to alter the configuration of the core prior to primary flake detachment. In view of recent interest in the evolution of recursive cognition (e.g. ), it is interesting to note that this embedding of flake detachments within flake detachments is formally recursive, with the theoretical potential to embed an infinite number of subordinate detachments (i.e.
Detach a flake to prepare to detach a flake to prepare to detach a flake ). This is depicted in b as optional nodes corresponding to second through nth-order embedded detachments.
As in recursive linguistic syntax, however, there are pragmatic limits to the actual number of embedded nodes in recursive flaking, including both physical and cognitive constraints. Karari and hierarchical centripetal methods, at least as described here, need not involve more than one level of recursive embedding. (ii) Large cutting tools (figure 1c) The production of Early Acheulean ‘large cutting tools’ (LCTs) involves both structured flaking and intentional shaping. Two LCT forms typical of the earliest Acheulean sites are pointed handaxes produced on large (greater than 10 cm) flakes and relatively thick, pointed picks typically produced from cobbles. The production of large flakes (called ‘blanks’) suitable for shaping into a handaxe was a key innovation of the Early Acheulean, and involves an elaboration of raw material procurement into a multi-component quarrying process, depicted to the left of c. Raw material selection criteria must now privilege size over composition, allowing for the production of large flakes.
Even given an adequately sized core, however, the consistent production of suitable blanks is quite challenging. Blank production requires a heavier hammerstone and much greater force than Oldowan flake production, and the largest cores would have necessarily been supported on the ground instead of in the hand. This requires the use of additional small boulders or cobbles to brace the core in an appropriate position. Manipulation and rotation of both core and hammerstone may have required two hands and a variety of new body postures. These fundamental differences in perceptual-motor organization, not depicted in c, make Acheulean blank production qualitatively different from Oldowan flaking. At a higher level of organization, however, there are important structural similarities.
The earliest blank production strategy may have been a simple iteration of flake detachments, leaving behind a ‘casual core’ resembling a large Oldowan core. Adoption of a bifacial flaking pattern, which helps to maintain adequate edge angles during sequential blank removals, was also common. This may have been an explicit strategy but, as in the Oldowan, can be minimally modelled as a simple target selection bias.
Even in these simple strategies, however, recursive flaking would sometimes have been necessary to ‘open’ the boulder core by removing a subordinate flake, itself too small to serve as a blank, intended to establish the first viable striking surface. By 1.2–1.1 Ma, de la Torre et al. report evidence of more extensive recursive flaking to establish core edge angles and surface morphology during blank production at the sites of RHS-Mugulud and MHS-Bayasi from Peninj. These blank production strategies can be compared with the elaborate flake production methods described above, and are diagrammed as repeated instances (1,2, n) of recursive flaking in c. The production of an LCT directly from a cobble involves different raw material criteria (smaller size, oblong shape), omission of the entire blank production sequence, and more extensive shaping.
This coordination of production elements requires that the top node of the model contains some stable representation of intended tool form (e.g. Handaxe or pick; importantly, these forms co-occur at single sites) and associated lower level actions.
As has long been recognized, the production of standard forms from variable materials requires some such higher order representation ,. This need not be a fully specified geometric archetype and, especially in the early record, seems more likely to comprise certain learned characteristics of effective tools.
Desired tool characteristics were achieved through ‘shaping’: a sequence of flake detachments that result in a particular core form. In the case of a pick, for example, removal of one or more rows of flakes from two parallel sides of an oblong cobble would result in a thick pointed form with a triangular cross section. This might be modelled as a massively recursive sequence with each flake detachment enabling subsequent detachments culminating in the final removal required to achieve a pre-specified form. However, this depth of structure and planning is unnecessary and unlikely. Modern toolmakers (e.g.
) describe shaping in terms of the pursuit of local sub-goals resulting in the successive approximation of an overall target form. For example, a short series of flakes might be aimed at creating an edge, followed by a reappraisal of the overall form, selection of the next appropriate sub-goal and so on.
This is depicted to the right of c, with multiple duplications of (potentially) recursive flaking action chunks being combined to achieve local sub-goals which are themselves combined to achieve overall shaping goals. The result is a further increase in the hierarchical complexity of the associated tree, which now includes nine nested levels. This multi-level goal structure adds flexibility, reduces the requirement for extended contingency planning, and takes advantage of the core itself as a continuously available external resource structuring behaviour. It also provides latitude for substantial technological variation in that similar forms may be achieved from different raw materials using different subordinate goal structures. For example, at the Olduvai site of TK (1.33 Ma) LCTs were produced using a consistent ‘rhomboidal’ strategy of unifacial removals from opposite sides of tabular quartz blocks , while at sites OGS-12 and BSN-17 from Gona, Ethiopia (approx. 1.6 Ma) and Kokiselei 4, from West Turkana, Kenya (approx.
1.7 Ma) , variable combinations of unifacial and bifacial removals from two or three worked edges were used to fashion trihedral picks from lava cobbles. (c) Late Acheulean (ca 0.7–0.25 Ma; figure 1d) Although the Acheulean has been characterized as a monolithic, unchanging industry (e.g. ), this may in part reflect the fact that the earliest well-known European Acheulean sites date to only about 0.5 Ma (e.g. ) (although sites dating to 0.6–0.8 Ma have been reported in southern Europe ,).
African archaeologists have long recognized an important technological transition between the Early and Late Acheulean, occurring sometime before 0.5 Ma. Classically, this transition involves the appearance of smaller, thinner, more regular and symmetrical LCTs thought to require the use of a ‘soft hammer’ technique during production. Less-refined forms persist after this time, and may dominate some assemblages or even entire regions , however, it is clear that the global range of Acheulean variation expanded to include new forms.
The 0.7 Ma of Isenya in Kenya is currently one of the earliest reported examples of such tools. The site also provides examples of ‘cleavers’, a typical Late Acheulean LCT form involving the production of morphologically predetermined blanks. (i) Predetermined blank production In a typological sense, cleavers have been defined as LCTs with a transverse, blade-like ‘bit’ more than half the width of the tool , however, this is recognized as an arbitrary division of a morphological continuum.
In the technological sense followed here, cleavers are the product of a predetermined blank production process designed to yield a long, sharp cleaver bit on the blank prior to any shaping. Strategies documented at Isenya include a ‘unipolar’ method in which a subordinate, preparatory flake parallel to the objective flake shapes the cleaver bit, and the surprising ‘Kombewa’ method in which a primary blank is produced and a secondary blank then removed from it, yielding a biconvex shape with a sharp edge around almost the entire perimeter. These predetermination strategies represent an elaboration of Early Acheulean recursive blank production, involving an increase in the number of subordinate detachments required, and are included within the superordinate node ‘quarrying’ to the left of d.
Fully predetermined blank production is clearly documented at Isenya 0.7 Ma and may even date to greater than 1.0 Ma in South Africa. Certainly, by ca 0.4–0.3 Ma, it is widespread and includes a range of variants like the ‘Victoria West’ and ‘Tabelbala-Tachengit’ methods ,. Late Acheulean ‘proto-Levallois’ methods are widely seen as transitional to subsequent Middle Stone Age (MSA) ‘Levallois’ prepared core flake production strategies , with the main shifts being a reduction in size (probably related to the introduction of hafting in the MSA) and a further diversification of methods (e.g. Preferential, centripetal, convergent, etc.). In fact, production of diverse small tools in ‘Late Acheulean’ times may have been underestimated (cf ), and standardized blade production (long considered a hallmark of modern humans) has been reported from two 0.5 Ma sites in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya. (ii) Late Achuelean shaping (figure 1d) Production of the thinner, more regular LCTs characteristic of the Late Acheulean requires a more elaborate shaping process. Cross-sectional thinning is one of the most distinctive and technically demanding characteristics of the process , requiring the reliable production of flakes that travel more than half-way across the surface of the piece without removing large portions of the edge.
Examples of well-thinned Late Acheulean LCTs have been described from Europe (e.g. ), Western Asia (e.g. ) and Africa (e.g. ) in a variety of raw materials.
Download software scan ljk gratis. Experimentally, thinning flakes are often achieved using a soft hammer of bone or antler that can initiate fracture without gouging the edge, and such hammers have been found in Late Acheulean contexts. However, it is possible to achieve similar results with a hammerstone if the surface to be struck (the ‘striking platform’) is properly prepared. Indeed, some such ‘platform preparation’ is also required for the effective use of a soft hammer. This preparation involves the small-scale chipping and/or abrasion of edges to alter their sharpness, bevel and placement relative to the midline and can take place on both striking and release surfaces. Small-scale chipping is usually accomplished with light, glancing blows of a smaller, specifically selected hammerstone held in a more flexible grip. Whether or not a soft hammer is used, various different sized hammerstones may be required for different sub-goals within the shaping process. Following Moore , platform preparation is modelled as a subordinate process within percussion.
This adds a further level of hierarchical structure, as well as qualitatively different perceptual-motor elements. Together with selection of a hammer appropriate to the intended percussion, platform preparation becomes part of a new structural unit, ‘complex flake detachment’, which is depicted in the inset box to the left of d. Complex flake detachment constitutes an action ‘chunk’ may be substituted for simple flake detachment and combined iteratively and/or recursively to achieve sub-goals during shaping and especially thinning (marked by asterisk in d). Archaeologists generally recognize at least two major stages of Late Acheulean LCT shaping: ‘roughing-out’ and ‘finishing’, depicted to the right of d. Roughing-out is somewhat comparable with Early Acheulean shaping, but involves the specific aim of establishing a centred, bifacial edge with adequate geometry to support subsequent thinning operations. This superordinate goal is implemented through various sub-goals addressing particular portions of the core through structured complex flaking.
Roughing-out generally involves hard hammer percussion, large flake production and little or no platform preparation. Finishing involves the detachment of thinning flakes and small marginal flakes in order to achieve sub-goals of thinning and regularizing the core, through localized episodes of recursive (often complex) flaking. Smaller and soft hammers may be used, and platform preparation can be extensive. The result is a relatively thin, lightweight tool with sharp, regular bifacial edges, associated with the most complex action tree considered so far, comprising 10 nested levels. 3. Lower palaeolithic culture change This paper examines one of the best known, widely accepted and well-documented characteristics of the Lower Palaeolithic record: the increase over time in the upper limits of variation in technological complexity on a global scale. Fine-grained patterns of change are of course more complicated, yet there can be little doubt that the most complex technologies known from 0.25 Ma far exceed those of 2.5 Ma. What remains controversial is the tempo, mode and magnitude of this change, and whether it is more consistent with biological or cultural explanation.
One prevalent view emphasizes the ‘remarkable conservatism’ of Acheulean technology , which is thought to reflect punctuated rather than gradual change and to exemplify a dearth of cumulative cultural evolution in the Lower (and even Middle) Palaeolithic ,. It has been argued that this slow, punctuated pattern of Palaeolithic technological change is best explained in terms of underlying cognitive constraints (i.e.
Biological evolution) ,. Analysis of the hierarchical structure of toolmaking action sequences provides a standard format for technological comparison, which may be useful in assessing these arguments. The most obvious result of the preceding analysis is that Lower Palaeolithic technological change is indeed cumulative.
Elaborate flake production and shaping methods build on previously established technologies by adding levels of hierarchical structure and/or modifying the content of existing sub-processes. However, it might still be argued that the rate of change is slow enough to imply cognitive differences from modern humans. This leads to questions of how to quantify culture change, and what exactly a ‘modern’ rate would be. Neolithic rates of change would surely dwarf those of the Lower Palaeolithic, but pale in comparison to the twentieth century. Simply assigning a value of ‘1’ to each of the technological innovations discussed above produces a similar pattern of increasing rate of change over time , suggesting that the entire history of human technological evolution might follow a single exponential curve.
This heuristic exercise remains far too crude, and the evidence too sporadic, to rule out major discontinuities and inflections owing to biological change and/or other extrinsic factors. For example, the absence of incremental change 1.6–2.6 Ma constitutes an Oldowan ‘stasis’ , however, it is not inherently obvious whether this represents a discontinuity or merely the long tail of an exponential curve. In any case, the apparent pattern does provide a case for more seriously considering intrinsic factors that might tend to produce a uniform curve at this coarse level of analysis.
One such factor is the intrinsic relationship between technological complexity and diversity. Accumulation of Palaeolithic technological variations discussed in the text. Each innovation adds an increment of ‘1’ on the y-axis; some points (e.g. ‘cleaver variants’) correspond to more than one innovation. The action hierarchy analysis suggests that complexity constrains diversity.
Simply put, there just is not that much potential for variation in Oldowan flake production. It is only with more complicated technologies that multiple variants become possible, because more choices are possible. Technical innovations like recursive flaking and platform preparation alleviate raw material constraints, allowing for the emergence of more hierarchically complex strategies with multiple, differentiated end-products. Increasing hierarchical complexity in turn favours the emergence of technical innovations by providing greater latitude for the recombination of action elements and sub-assemblies. Across such diverse disciplines as physics, chemistry, genetics and linguistics, hierarchical recombination has been recognized as a fundamental process driving ‘self-diversification’.
For example, there is an analogy to be made with the way in which genetically regulated developmental hierarchies enable evolutionarily productive processes of segmental duplication and differentiation. In much the same way, increasing technological complexity might become autocatalytic, contributing to the apparently exponential pattern of human technological evolution seen at the largest scale of analysis. All of this implies that Lower Palaeolithic hominins possessed adequate cognitive substrates for some degree of cumulative cultural evolution, an unsurprising result considering the transmission capacities of modern chimpanzees. Nevertheless, significant evolutionary elaborations of these shared capacities might have occurred during the Lower Palaeolithic, relaxing constraints on the complexity of transmitted techniques and allowing for increasing rates of change. One candidate for such cognitive evolution is the modern human propensity for detailed copying of behavioural means ( imitation) as opposed to ends ( emulation) ,. However, consideration of the action hierarchies presented above immediately raises a question as to what exactly counts as a means and what as an end. How far down the hierarchy must one go to be engaged in imitation, and how far up for emulation?
Studies of imitation in children suggest that copying is better understood in terms of goal hierarchies rather than a strict means/ends dichotomy. Thus, a specific arm movement trajectory would be a subordinate goal to the superordinate goal of displacing an external object rather than a qualitatively different ‘behavioural means’. When cognitive resources are limited and multiple goals compete for attention, children tend to reproduce superordinate goals at the expense of subordinate goals , paralleling a similar hierarchical bias in adults' selective perception, memory and transmission of narrative event information. When competing superordinate goals are removed, children are more successful at copying ‘low-level’ goals, including movement trajectories. In apes, similar capacities for low-level copying are illustrated by the ‘Do-as-I-do’ imitation of specific bodily actions , whereas in more complex, instrumental tasks the subordinate ‘means’ are often omitted. For both apes and children, it would seem that the fidelity of imitation is constrained more by the complexity (especially, the number of hierarchical levels) of behaviour to be copied rather than by the level of copying per se. At a given processing capacity, we should thus expect copying fidelity to be negatively correlated with hierarchical complexity.
Insofar as copying errors introduce variation, this would again contribute to the intrinsic relationship between complexity and diversification in cultural evolution. At relatively high levels of behavioural complexity, however, copying fidelity would decrease to the point that transmission might fail entirely. For example, Late Acheulean shaping is the most complex Lower Palaeolithic technology analysed here and a failure in its transmission (cf ) might help to explain the greater thickness of LCTs in eastern Asia ,. From this perspective, successful transmission of complex technological behaviours would depend on two factors: individual capacities for hierarchical information processing (cf ) and social mechanisms of skill acquisition.
Neither of these need remain constant, and both are likely to have been influenced by the biological evolution of hominin brains , which nearly tripled in size during the Lower Palaeolithic. Hierarchical cognition is supported by lateral frontal cortex , the more anterior portions of which are disproportionately expanded in humans. Increasing levels of abstraction in action organization place demands on increasingly anterior portions of frontal cortex and precisely this pattern of increased anterior activation has been observed in a brain imaging study comparing Late Acheulean versus Oldowan toolmaking. This is consistent with the possibility that evolving neural substrates for complex action organization could have interacted with autocatalytic increases in technological complexity to produce a ‘runaway’ process of biocultural evolution ,. Complex hierarchical cognition is not, however, sufficient for the reproduction of Palaeolithic technological behaviours.
Stone toolmaking, from the Oldowan on, requires bodily skills , that cannot be acquired directly through observation. These pragmatic skills can only be developed through deliberate practice and experimentation leading to the discovery of low-level dynamics that would remain ‘opaque’ (cf ) to observation alone. Available evidence indicates that it takes more than a few hours of practice for modern humans to master even simple Oldowan flake production , and personal experience suggests that Late Acheulean skill may demand hundreds of hours. In the modern community of Langda in Papua Provence, Indonesia, traditional stone toolmaking skills are transmitted through semi-formal apprenticeships that can last 10 years or more. Motivation and commitment through this extended period are promoted by the social context of toolmaking, which occurs in a supportive group setting and is a source of pride, pleasure and personal identity for practitioners. Central to the learning process is a heavy investment in the individual practice needed to consolidate basic perceptual-motor skills. This is encouraged by the positive social value placed on practice and is supported by instruction, demonstration, intervention and assistance from more experienced toolmakers, all of which acts as a social ‘scaffold’ promoting individual skill acquisition.
Experimental studies similarly show that, while novice toolmakers rapidly learn to identify and select appropriate targets , it takes much longer to develop the perceptual-motor skill needed to predict and control flake detachments ,. Such skill development requires the discovery of appropriate techniques through behavioural experimentation with various different grips, postures and angles of percussion, as well as with hammerstones of varying size, shape and density. Discovery of optimal techniques might be facilitated by social scaffolding , explicit instruction or high-fidelity imitation of an expert model, but minimally requires focused attention, self-monitoring and the inhibition of automatic reactions during repetitious practice ,. Social motivation and support for such protracted practice are important contributing factors that appear to be uniquely developed in humans , and may reflect further interactions between biologically evolving neural and endocrine substrates of prosocial behaviour , and culturally evolving hominin technologies.
5. Conclusions Stone toolmaking action analyses presented here demonstrate the presence of cumulative cultural evolution in the Lower Palaeolithic and suggest that this accumulation displays an accelerating rate of change continuous with that seen in later human history. This should encourage interest in intrinsic processes of cultural evolution that might tend to produce such a uniform curve, including the potentially autocatalytic effects of increasing technological complexity. As illustrated here, Lower Palaeolithic technologies clearly do increase in hierarchical complexity through time, raising the possibility of important interactions with the evolution of human cognitive control and socially supported skill acquisition ,.
Analyses developed here have attempted to build on previous contributions , but remain quite limited in scope. For example, they are semi-arbitrarily bounded at the lower end by relatively large-scale and under-specified reaching, grasping and manipulating actions and at the upper end by the articulation with other major domains of hominin behaviour, especially including tool use. Continued efforts in these directions will be needed to adequately characterize the pattern, mechanisms and rate of Lower Palaeolithic technological change.
In the early part of his evolution, man made great use of rock and stone to assist him in his activities. The term ‘Stone Age’ has been given to the period of time during which stone was the main material used for the manufacture of functional tools for daily life. It is generally thought to have commenced about 3.3mya and was the time when man firmly established his position on earth as a ‘tool-using’ mammal. However, it should be remembered that stone was not the only material used for this purpose. More perishable materials, such as wood, reeds, bone and antler, were also used, but very few of these materials have survived to be found today (but see the box: Non-stone tools).
Non-stone tools A notable exception to the general rule that non-stone tools have not been preserved is the Palaeolithic wooden spear shaft that was recovered in 1911 from a site in Clacton in Essex. At 400,000 years old, the yew-wood spear is the oldest, wooden artefact that is known to have been found in the UK (see ).
Flint Achulean culture hand axe recovered from the historic site at Swanscombe, Kent in 1906. A number of wooden spears dating from 380,000 to 400,000 years ago were also recovered between 1994 and 1998 from an open-cast coal mine in Germany (see ). Other items are found from time to time from peat-bog conditions, which offer the most favourable medium for the preservation of such material. The stones used to make tools Being a non-perishable material, stone has survived the ravages of time and is therefore the main material from which much of our current knowledge about the history of man has been obtained. The technological development of mankind is known to have proceeded at different rates in different parts of the world, one particular example of this being when early man in Europe were using stone tools at a time when bronze was the material being worked in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
A more recent example is displayed by the Aborigines and other native Australian populations of today, who use stone tools that are hard to distinguish from artefacts from European Palaeolithic times. The ‘Stone Age’ element of our history is usually sub-divided into three periods (each with its own tool culture), the earliest of which is known as the ‘Palaeolithic’ period, otherwise known as the ‘Old Stone Age’. This era began about 3.3mya when stone tools were first used by an early species of human (Australopithecus afarensis). Starting about 20,000 years ago the ‘Mesolithic’ era (the ‘Middle Stone Age’) followed the Palaeolithic period and then, commencing about 10,200 years ago, the Neolithic period (‘New Stone Age’) became the most recent of the three sub-divisions. About 3,500 years ago, the Neolithic period ended and was replaced by the ‘Bronze Age’, this being the time when man discovered the use of metals. However, as will be seen, man has used rock and stone throughout his history.
A flake of flint showing the sharp edges and points that can be produced when fracturing a flint nodule. Only some types of stone are suitable for use in the making of tools and, consequently, early man had to ‘hunt’ for the correct types of stone to use. It was necessary to know what type of stone he was looking for and this requirement can be taken as a sign of man’s evolving intelligence. The most familiar of the stone types in question is flint (Fig. 1), which is a hard sedimentary cryptocrystalline form of the mineral quartz and is a stone that fractures easily and cleanly, producing sharp edges that are capable of cutting flesh (Fig. It can even fracture predictably. The incisive property of flint was recognised by early man, who made practical use of that property primarily for the acquisition and preparation of food supplies.
Flint occurs naturally in sedimentary rocks, including chalks and limestones, and can exist as individual nodules of varying size, large irregular masses and even as sheet deposits, the latter providing welcome mining opportunities in Neolithic times (for example, at Grimes Graves in Norfolk). Through time, other stone types have been used to make tool artefacts, but not all of these have the same properties as flint. Another silica-rich cryptocrystalline sedimentary stone type that was often used, particularly in the southwest of the UK, is chert (Fig. Although not quite the same as flint in mineralogical terms, chert can be fashioned in a similar manner and has consequently been used in the production of functional tools.
A mineral of igneous origin known to have been used for making tools is obsidian, (see Fig 4). Commonly called ‘volcanic glass’, it is a hard, glassy mineral which fracture easily yielding very sharp edges. This property was noticed by early man, who put it to productive use to make cutting and piercing tools. In modern times, it has even been used experimentally to manufacture surgical scalpel blades. A 350,000-year-old ‘cleaver’ implement made from chert, a common stone type found in the southwest of the UK. This item was probably made by Homo heidelbergensis and was recently recovered from deposits in the River Axe valley on the Devon/Dorset border.
In the North African desert regions of Libya and Egypt, a large quantity of a natural silica glass, known as ‘Libyan desert glass’, can be found. About 26mya, a meteor fell causing a massive fireball that generated a tremendous amount of heat (at least 1,600oC). Desert sand was blasted into the atmosphere, melting in the heat and then raining back down to earth again as liquid glass, finally solidifying to form the glass fragments that can be found today. The functional qualities of this material became known to prehistoric man about 10,000 years ago and it was successfully used to manufacture tools (Fig. The Stone Age was followed by the Bronze Age, which saw man’s discovery of metals, these proving to be a dramatic aid to daily life. Tin was mined as an ore (cassiterite) and smelted before being added to molten copper to make the alloy. The ‘Iron Age’ then followed, but it should be appreciated that stone tools were still being used for many purposes during both these periods of time (although their quality noticeably deteriorated).
Types of tool As Homo evolved, his mental capacity increased such that his manufacture of tools was accompanied by increasing levels of sophistication. Stone tools can be grouped into distinctive patterns of manufacture, each pattern showing an increased level of sophistication over its predecessor. These patterns are termed ‘cultures’ (or ‘industries’) and the culture to which a stone tool can be attributed is one of the indicators that has been used in the past to help identify the species of hominid responsible for its manufacture, an important step in tracking the evolution of man.
Initially, early man made use of sharp edges that can occur on naturally broken pieces of stone and, recognising the value of these artefacts, put them to effective use. However, he then began to create his own sharp-edged fragments through the simple act of banging two stones together in the right manner to produce the desired articles. As time passed, the manufacturing technique was increasingly refined and tools of greater sophistication began to appear. A selection of small Mesolithic tools made from Obsidian, the igneous mineral known colloquially as ‘volcanic glass’. Before looking at the ways in which tools can be classified according to their method of manufacture, it may first be helpful to look at some of the different types that were actually produced. Early types may be grouped as ‘choppers’ or ‘cleavers’, ‘cutters’, ‘scrapers’ and ‘borers’, each type being fairly self-explanatory in function. Choppers and cleavers were the earliest tool types to have been used and were larger pieces of stone with functional edges that could be found either as natural products or physically made by breaking big stones into smaller pieces.
Such pieces of stone will usually have at least one sharper edge that would serve as a functional edge, which was produced either when the stone was broken or by the later careful removal of small stone fragments (retouching). The opposing edge will usually have a thicker profile, this providing a suitable hand grip with which the item could be held. The tool would be used by swinging it in a chopping motion using the functional edge to impact a target item, hopefully with the desired result. A chopper (Fig. 8) would usually produce rougher, more irregular incisions in the target, while a cleaver (Fig. 9) would produce cleaner, more symmetrical cuts.
Cutters and scrapers appeared a little later in time and were smaller and more refined, usually being made from flakes of stone that had originally been removed from a central stone ‘core’. Flakes of stone with sharp edges were used either to cut through suitable materials (for example, the preparation of meat for consumption) or to scrape unwanted material away from a substrate to produce a more functional or desirable item (for example, preparation of an animal hide for clothing). Scrapers with one or both sides refined for use in this way are known as ‘side scrapers’ (Fig. 10), while those in which the end has been prepared for such use are termed ‘end scrapers’ (Fig. Small, roughly circular stones with all edges suitably refined are referred to as ‘discoidal’ scrapers (Fig.
There is no particular shape that would identify a scraper, but a tool of this type will always incorporate at least one refined scraping edge in its final form. However, tools would often be made to serve more than just one particular purpose with the physical features of each intended purpose being combined in the one tool. Unsurprisingly these tools are termed ‘combination tools’.
4 Neolithic microlith implements made from the North African mineral known as ‘Libyan desert glass’. Borers were probably the last of the above tool types to appear. They were usually stones to which there is an extension of some form terminating in an incisive point that would enable its use for ‘boring’ or ‘grinding’ activities (Fig. Part of the stone would be left unaltered to allow it to be held in the hand, while the extension to the stone is suitably sharpened for penetrating or piercing.
As needs developed, different tools were made to meet those needs and a great variety of tools evolved. Stone ‘blade’ tools (Fig.
Stone Tools Made By Earman
14) made their appearance in Upper Palaeolithic times and production of these items appears to be concentrated in that period. Blades are greater in length than in width, having approximately parallel sides and were usually struck directly from a stone core. Seen and acquired at an ERMS annual show, this Palaeolithic Acheulean culture hand axe was found at Lymington in Hampshire, in deposits of the ancient River Solent. Some important tool types appeared in Upper Palaeolithic times that were created based on blade technology, including backed knives, end scrapers and burins.
A burin (Fig. 15) is a small chisel-like implement that has a point or small functional edge set at right angles to the main blade axis.
A ‘backed’ knife is a sharp edged blade on which the edge opposing the functional edge remains blunt to permit the safe application of pressure during use (Fig. Blades could be ‘denticulated’ to give them a serrated saw tooth-like appearance (Fig. 17) or they could be ‘shouldered’ to create a thinner stem (tang), which could be used for attachment to a shaft or handle. Shouldering is the creation of a step-like structure along the length of a shaft, which would provide a surface against which pressure could be applied and then transmitted along the axis of the shaft. Such a technique was particularly used in the making of spear-heads and arrow-heads (Fig.
A feature that could be created at any stage in the manufacture of stone implements was produced by a technique known as ‘notching’. This was the creation of a distinct circular notch or notches on the edge of a stone implement.
Notching was employed in the making of both flake and blade tools, and usually featured in the making of tools that were utilised for special purposes (Fig. One such use in Neolithic times was for the stripping and straightening of arrow shafts. A large, early Lower Palaeolithic ‘chopper’ found at the base of coastal cliffs on the beach at Overstrand, Norfolk in the UK, in 2010. Generally, the size of tools reduced as man’s skills in manufacture improved, with heavier crude ‘core’ tools making way for smaller, lighter more refined ‘flake’ tools. Finished items became smaller and smaller in size, culminating in the creation of ‘microliths’. Microliths, as their name suggests, are ‘small stones’.
They are an Upper Palaeolithic blade technology that was developed from the ‘backed blades’ of the Magdalenian culture (see below). They are tools of a small size (Fig. 21), perhaps 1 or 2cm in length and 3mm wide, and were often used for making composite tools, perhaps appearing in pairs as barbs that terminate a wooden shaft or hafted in rows along a length of wood to form a cutting or sawing edge. A Lower Palaeolithic ‘cleaver’ recently found in Solent River gravel deposits, Lymington, Hampshire in the UK.
The development of stone tools over time The first tools used by man were probably unfashioned stones picked up at random or chosen for a convenient or helpful natural shape. Man later learned to shape the stones himself, although the first attempts at such activity were likely to be indistinguishable from naturally broken stones. The stone tools that were made by Homo habilis are crude elementary tool attributed to what is referred to as the ‘Oldowan’ culture, the earliest of the Palaeolithic tool cultures (also often referred to as ‘Pebble tools’; Fig. Oldowan tools consist of larger stones or large flakes of stone produced by striking two suitable stones together causing them to fracture.
Sharp edges produced in this way may arise from the striking activity itself or result from refinement procedures to produce sharper, more functional edges ready for use (that is, retouching). ‘Side scraper’ in which one side edge has been prepared and undoubtedly used for scraping activities. A second Lower Palaeolithic culture attributable particularly to Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis is known as the ‘Clactonian’ culture (Fig. Dating from around 400,000 years ago until 200,000 years ago, the culture is named after Clacton on the Essex coast in the southeast of the UK.
It was at this particular site that tools of this culture were first noted and the site therefore became known as the ‘Type site’. Between 1.7mya and 100,000 years ago, and attributable to the same species, a distinctive, more refined culture, termed the ‘Acheulian’ culture (Fig.
20) made its appearance, this culture being named after the type-site of St Acheul in France, where tools of this type were first found. The classic teardrop shaped ‘hand axe’ is a well-known tool type that is characteristic of this culture. Mesolithic ‘end scraper’. One end of this blade has been prepared and used for scraping activities. Found during the 1950s in ploughed fields, near Avebury in Wiltshire (just north of Stonehenge). Characteristic of Middle Palaeolithic times is the more sophisticated, more refined and distinctive tool culture that was created by Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis).
Named the ‘Mousterian’ culture (Fig. 23), it lasted from 700,000 until about 35 to 40,000 years ago. Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian culture ‘discoidal scraper’ recovered from a classic Neanderthal site in France. Homo sapiens (modern man) was responsible for the creation of several tool cultures during the Upper Palaeolithic period. Each culture displays advances over its predecessor in the sophistication of its finish.
In order of chronological appearance, these are: the ‘Chatelperronian’ (41 to 39,000 years ago); the ‘Aurignacian’ (39 to 29,000 years ago); the ‘Gravettian’(29 – 22,000 years ago; Figs. 24 and 27); the ‘Solutrean’ (22 to 17,000 years ago; Figs.
25 and 26); the ‘Magdalenian’ (17 to 12,000 years ago; Fig. 19); and the ‘Azilian’ (commencing 12,000 years ago). An additional, specifically British tool industry, named the ‘Creswellian’ culture, has also now been recognised by the British archaeologist Dorothy Garrod. Dating from around 13,000 years ago, it survived until about 11,800 years ago. Possibly arising from the Mousterian culture, the ‘Chatellperronian’ is the earliest of the Upper Palaeolithic tool cultures.
This culture seems to have evolved from the French Mousterian tradition and the only diagnostic fossils that can definitely be associated with this culture are those of Neanderthals. However, fossils associated with the Aurignacian tradition that followed are those of modern humans. The Aurignacian culture is found over most of Europe and was first recognised with the ‘Cro-Magnon’ discovery (early modern man) in 1868 in France. However, there is a possibility that it could be attributable to the Neanderthals. Mesolithic ‘borer’ recovered from Hengistbury Head, Dorset. The ‘Gravettian’ culture was prevalent before the last ice age, dating from between 28,000 to 22,000 years ago. It was succeeded by the Solutrean culture, a fairly advanced tool-making industry that was in existence between 22,000 and 17,000 years ago, employing techniques in manufacture not seen before.
The world’s first recognisable needles may be placed within this culture. The Magdalenian culture spanned the period between 18,000 and 10,000 years ago when the last ice age finished.
This culture is characterised by blade industries and also marked the appearance of ‘microlith’ technology (Fig. Mobile dwelling facilities were used by the Magdalenian people and they were not restricted to living in cave sites. Yet another culture was the ‘Azilian’ culture, which dates from about 10,000 years ago and includes several diagnostic artefacts including decorated pebbles.
Upper Palaeolithic dual combination side/end scraper blade recovered from Portland Bill, Dorset. The final culture to consider is the British industry known as the ‘Creswellian’ culture.
It was named following the study of a particular tool culture found at Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, at one time probably the richest Palaeolithic site in Britain. The tools resembled those known from other British sites including Kent’s Cavern in Devon and Robin Hood’s Cave in the Creswell Caves of Derbyshire (where tools of this type were first found). They all exhibited similar features that led to the naming of an independent culture – the ‘Creswellian’ culture. Mesolithic dihedral burin on a stone blade.
The Mesolithic period followed on from the Upper Palaeolithic cultures. One of the defining features of the Mesolithic was a change in the types of tools being used, these now being utilized for fishing and for the cultivation and gathering of plants as well as for hunting. Stone tools became smaller and small stone blades became common.
Tools used in this period show that the earlier technologies of ice age human predecessors remained in use while the quality of tools, like scrapers, borers, knives and burins (still made from flint), showed noticeable improvements in the quality of their finish. Tiny stone ‘points’ became abundant, with microliths and similar implements providing the sharp points needed for use in spearheads. Microliths and other items in the form of retouched bladelets are frequently found in deposits of the Mesolithic period and this period is characterised by the use of small refined stone tools. Blades of stone were struck directly from prepared stone cores and saw extensive use, particularly in the manufacture of composite tools. Core-blades were used to make a wide range of implements, some of which were specially modified for particular purposes (Fig. This was probably one reason why the technology was so successful for such a long period of time.
The microlith industry itself is a ‘core and blade’ technology that was most characteristic of the Mesolithic period between 8,000 to 5,000 years ago, although the common use of core blades in Europe began during the Aurignacian Palaeolithic period well over 30,000 years ago. Smaller tools that were more suited to undertaking specific tasks made their appearance at this time and the tool industry as a whole saw the production of tools that were generally more compact, refined and specialised. Mesolithic ‘backed knife’ made from a stone blade. At least 20 cultures attributable to the Mesolithic era have now been recognised, with many of these being distinctive cultures that are known to have been made in, but limited to, specific geographical areas such as Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, North Africa and the Far East. Each area produced its own distinctive culture for reasons that can ultimately be attributed to the distribution and dispersal of the increasing human population. By the time the ‘New Stone Age’ (Neolithic era) dawned, the world population had increased dramatically and many new technological cultures and industries became established.
The starting point of the Neolithic era is much debated and different parts of the world are considered to have reached the Neolithic age at different times. However, generally speaking, it is thought to have commenced sometime about 10,000 years ago. The Neolithic era marks a notable progression in human behavioural and cultural characteristics, including the use of wild crops, domestic crops and domesticated animals in what was true farming. Settlements became more permanent and, for the first time, houses were made of long-lasting mud-brick components as opposed to biodegradable organic materials. Neolithic ‘mahogany obsidian’ arrowhead. Note the ‘denticulated’ blade edges. The cultivation of crops and domestication of animals marked the beginning of farming practices.
In particular, the cultivation of cereal grains resulted in Neolithic people building permanent dwellings and congregating in villages. This release from a nomadic, hunter-gatherer life-style gave rise to the pursuit of numerous specialised crafts. One particular benefit that arose from the development and increased sophistication of farming technology was the possibility of producing crop yields and food supplies in excess of immediate needs.
Any surpluses could then be stored for later use or even used for possible trading purposes – a significant development in social organisation. One identifying characteristic of Neolithic technology is the use of polished or ground stone tools (Fig. 29), as opposed to the ‘flaked’ stone tools that were used during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic eras. Fine stone arrowheads were also a characteristic production of Neolithic times, making their first appearance at this time. They could be finished either with or without tangs and displayed an enormous range of barb types. They were to play a very significant role in social organisation. Neolithic people had also become skilled farmers manufacturing a wide range of tools used for cultivation and food production.
Such tools included sickle blades (Fig. 31), curved knives, quern stones and grinding stones. Applicable for some regions, the appearance of pottery is also considered to be symbolic of Neolithic times along with the craft of weaving. Neolithic ‘notched’ flake recovered from Caistor St.
Edmund, Norfolk, in 2016. Used for cleaning/preparing/straightening arrow shafts (with 5p coin for scale). Towards the end of the Neolithic era, tin and copper were discovered as potential manufacturing materials, marking a transition into the period known as the Bronze Age. However, stone was still used as a major manufacturing component to aid in daily life, but there is no doubt that, by this time, man had moved on from his early stone age lifestyle.