The Function of "Hand Axes": PUZZLE SOLVED

[Claudius Denk]

The function of hand axes: Puzzle solved

Go to end of this post and look for the phrase: "HERE IS THE ANSWER"


*********************** BEGINNING OF NOTES *****************


The Acheulians or Early Stone Age humans took great
care in the shaping of stones, especially in the manufacture
of almond-shaped hand-axes.

The axes are difficult to make, requiring
that great strength and precision be maintained over thirty to
a hundred and fifty procedures

In South Africa they are
common, and there is one desolate field in the Kalahari
where billions of hand-axes and other stone tools lie in a
layer a metre deep, extending to the horizon . . . "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science

Werdelin’s theory: the species that went extinct were specifically those species that were in direct competition with the hominins or that were threats to them—namely, omnivores with diets similar to that of the hominins and hypercarnivores with a narrow range of prey.

Such continuity over time and space speaks to us of use, success, and reuse - a design integral to some task, a task appropriate or essential to diverse environments.

which task (or tasks) the hand axe performed is still being debated.

most are six or seven inches long.

a sharp edge around all or most of its perimeter.

there is no evidence that it was hefted until much later in time, not until after the evolution of Homo sapiens.

Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ, is that the hand axe acted as a stationary tool,

Homo erectus possessed other tools suitable for these purposes - tools that precede and continue alongside the hand axe in the archeological record. Compared with these, the hand axe was costly to produce in terms of time, labor, and skill, and required larger blocks of fine-grained, faultless stone such as flint or basalt.

the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much damage on the user as on the material being worked.

hey would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it

Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record.

hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed.


This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency.


owing to its weight and the ovate, broad point, the experimental hand axe was difficult to grasp and throw overhand. George Peredy,


The hand axe may be proof that this behavioral strategy was refined long ago, at a time when truly "giants strode the earth" - when by dint of size the megamammals of the Pleistocene asserted their dominance, when migrating game might pass in a continuous parade for days without a break in their ranks,



They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed.


***************************************************************

The Hand Axe -

A Million Years of Use


What Was the Acheulean Hand Axe?

by Eileen M. O'Brien

About one and one-half million years ago, a new type of large, symmetrically shaped stone implement entered the prehistoric tool kit, signaling both an advance in craftsmanship and the advent of Homo erectus, a small-brained but otherwise fairly recognizable form of human being. The tool was the hand axe, which these ancestral humans faithfully made for well over one million years. Named for archeological finds at Saint Acheul, France examples of the Acheulean hand axe are found from the Vaal River of South Africa to the lakes, bogs, and rivers of Europe, from the shores of the Mediterranean to India and Indonesia. Such continuity over time and space speaks to us of use, success, and reuse - a design integral to some task, a task appropriate or essential to diverse environments.

Homo erectus needed tools: tools to cut, slice, and chop, to dig, pound, and grind; tools to defend against predators and competitors, to procure and process food or other materials, even tools to make tools. But which task (or tasks) the hand axe performed is still being debated.

The average hand axe looks like a giant stone almond, although some are more ovate and others more triangular. Crafted from a stone core or Rake, it can range in size from only a few inches to a foot or more, but most are six or seven inches long. Whether roughly finished or as relined as a work of art, the hand axe always has an eccentric center of gravity and a sharp edge around all or most of its perimeter. Thus in cross section lengthwise, it resembles a stretched-out teardrop.

Some have speculated that the hand axe's design was not functional but purely aesthetic or that it was a byproduct of the manufacture of the sharp Rakes used in butchering. Most anthropologists, however, assume it was a practical implement. Initially, prehistorians thought it was a hefted, multipurpose tool and weapon like the stone hatchet, or axe, of the aboriginal Americans and Australians. But there is no evidence that it was hefted until much later in time, not until after the evolution of Homo sapiens. Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ, is that the hand axe acted as a stationary tool, one edge embedded in the earth while the exposed edge cut or scraped an object passed over it. But the common and traditional interpretation is that it was a hand-held tool for butchering, cutting, scraping, digging, or as its name implies, chopping.

Experiments show that these important tasks can be accomplished with a hand axe. But Homo erectus possessed other tools suitable for these purposes - tools that precede and continue alongside the hand axe in the archeological record. Compared with these, the hand axe was costly to produce in terms of time, labor, and skill, and required larger blocks of fine-grained, faultless stone such as flint or basalt. The hand axe also presented a hazard. Since a heavy object requires effort to wield and carry, we may assume the mass of the hand axe was important to its function. Force in the form of increased momentum would be useful for chopping, for example, as compared with a task like scraping, where the user exerts all the energy in the form of pressure. But without a safe handhold, the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much damage on the user as on the material being worked.

Whatever its function, the hand axe represented to its users not only an investment of energy but also a source of raw material. They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed. Elsewhere across the landscape, hand axes are rare, although they are occasionally found in some numbers m prehistoric cave sites. This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency.

If we let the evidence speak for itself, the appropriate question is: What task would require force, call for a tool with a sharp edge around all (or most) of its perimeter but without a safe handhold, occur in or near water, and often result in the loss of a potentially reusable and valuable artifact? The possibility that occurred to me is that the hand axe was a projectile weapon. The idea, I have since discovered, has been thought of before, but not pursued. Use of the hand axe as a weapon has been suggested since at least the sixteenth century, and small hand axes have been proposed as projectiles since the nineteenth century, most enjoyably by H.G. Wells in his Tales of Time and Space (1899). More recently, M.D.W. Jeffreys, a South African anthropologist, wrote that the small- to medium-sized Vaal River hand axes would make good bird hunting weapons if thrown overhand, like a knife ("The Handbolt." Man, 1965). But the idea that hand axes were in general used as projectiles has not taken hold, probably because it is not obvious how the larger hand axes could have been thrown.

By analogy with modern forms, we understand how prehistoric stone arrowheads and spear points were propelled and used as weapons or how a stone ball ("spheroid," to archeologists) could be thrown or used in a bole (a weighted thong or cord thrown to entangle prey). But what about the hand axe? One way might be overhand, as Jeffreys suggested. Other methods of throwing a small- to medium-sized hand axe might be the side/overhand throw used in baseball and perhaps the backhand throw used in both knife and frisbee throwing. To throw a large, heavy hand axe, however, a sidearm or underhand throw might be preferable. A few years ago, I decided that a practical experiment was what was needed. From my limited knowledge of track and field, I thought that for sidearm throwing, an analogy might be made between a hand axe and the Olympic discus.

Like a hand axe, the early discus of the ancient Greeks was unhafted, edged all around, and made of stone. It also varied in size from about half a foot to more than one foot in diameter, and in weight from about two and one-quarter pounds to more than fourteen and one-half pounds. (Actually, the word discus means "a thing for throwing" or "a thing thrown"; the discus thrown by Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey, for example, is thought by some scholars to refer to a beach cobble.) Unlike a hand axe, the classic Greek discus was perfectly round. (The modern regulation discus, which weighs 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds, is made of wood and weighted with metal around the edge to accelerate its spinning motion. The longer and faster it spins, the more stable the flight pattern and the longer the flight, all else being equal.)

The hand axe I chose for the throwing experiment was the largest I could find in the Olorgesailie collection at the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi (I was in Africa at the time doing fieldwork unrelated to this topic). Because the original could not be used - and raw material for making a "real" hand axe of such size was difficult to obtain - a fiberglass replica was made. The original hand axe is a little more than a foot long, ovate shaped, and edged all around. It is made of basalt and weighs about four pounds, three ounces. J.D. Ambrosse Esa (then head of the museum's casting department) supervised the casting and the accurate weighting of the facsimile to within one and one-half ounces of the original.

The experiment took place in 1978, in the discus practice area at the University of Massachusetts, where I was then a student. Two student athletes participated: Karl Nyholm, a discus thrower, and George Peredy a javelin thrower. One day in late April, and again two weeks later, both threw the hand axe discus-style. Peredy also threw it overhand. To maximize potential accuracy in the discus throw, the thrower did not whirl.

The first to throw the hand axe discus style was Karl Nyholm. He took the unfamiliar object in his right hand, grasping it every which way before settling on the butt. He tossed it up and down for balance and "feel," then crouched and practiced his swing. Ready, he paced off from the release line. With his back to the field, he spread his legs apart, bent at the knees, and twisted his right arm far behind him. Then he began the throw: his outstretched left hand grasping at air, weight shifting from right foot to left, he rotated to face the field. The burdened right hand swung wide and low and then raced upward With a great exhalation of breath, he hurled himself out straight and let go. Silently, gracefully spinning, the hand a soared.

Like a discus, the hand axe spun horizon - tally as it rose, but changed its orientation in midair. On reaching its maximum altitude, it rolled onto its edge and descended in a perpendicular position, its spinning motion appearing to decline. Then, with thud, it landed point first, slicing deeply into the thawing earth. In both throwing; bouts, regardless of thrower, the hand a repeated this flight pattern when thrown discus-style. It landed on edge forty-two, out of forty-five throws, shiny one of which were point first. The average throw was about one-third the length of a foot- ball field (almost 102 feet), and usually accurate to within two yards right or left of the line of trajectory.

The propensity of the hand axe to pivot onto its edge in mid-flight was unexpected and curious. But, as suggested to me by! several track coaches, it may be related to the same factors that can produce the "peel -off" pattern in a thrown discus some function of the manner of release and the thrower's expertise. A full explanation of the physical principles involved must await an interpretation by someone with the relevant expertise What is important is that it does happen By so doing, it makes on- edge impact of a thrown hand axe predictable. The further tendency of the hand axe to land point first does not appear accidental and adds to the implement's potential to inflict damage. If the hand axe can also be thrown so that it behaves exactly like the discus in both ascent and descent (more recent demonstrations support this possibility), then by simply changing the angle and manner of release it should be possible to strike a target with either a horizontally or vertically directed edge.

Modern discus throwing is not known for its accuracy. But in terms of how far a hand axe might ideally be thrown, it is worth noting that the 1980 Olympic record in discus was 218.8 feet. Since the experimental hand axe weighs only two and a half ounces less than the modern Olympic discus, this suggests that as the thrower's skill and/or strength increase, the potential flight distance of the hand axe increases.

When grasped and thrown overhand, like a knife, the experimental hand axe performed like one, rotating symmetrically on edge in both ascent and descent. The average throw was just short of discus-style, but more accurate, about half a yard right or left of the line of trajectory. It always landed on edge, but less often point first. Unfortunately,, these results are the product of only six throws; owing to its weight and the ovate, broad point, the experimental hand axe was difficult to grasp and throw overhand. George Peredy, who was the thrower, also appeared to tire more quickly using this method and probably could not have used it al all if he had not had large hands, in proportion to his six- foot six-inch frame. This overhand style would probably be more suitable for lighter, more triangular hand axes. In contrast, weight and shape were of no real concern when throwing the hand axe discus-style. Even a significant increase in weight might not have impeded the throwing motion, although it would have affected the distance of the throw.

Further testing is needed (and is currently under way), but these first trials showed that a hand axe could perform appropriately as a projectile. The hand axe demonstrated a propensity to land on edge when thrown overhand or discus-style, a tendency to land point first, and a potential for distant and accurate impact. Its overall shape minimizes the effects of resistance while in flight, as well as at impact. This is not true of an unshaped stone or a spheroid, for example. And despite its sharp edge, the hand axe could be launched without a safe handhold. The only apparent limitations to the hand axe's use as a projectile weapon are the strength, coordination, and skill of the thrower.

Homo erectus was bipedal, probably dexterous enough to manipulate a hand axe in either of the tested throwing styles, and very much stronger than most modern humans. With their technique perfected over years of practice and use, our ancestors probably surpassed the accuracy shown in the experimental throws. I suspect the hand axe simply reflects a refinement in missile design, one that allowed for successful long-distance offense and defense against larger animals. This is consistent with evidence that big-game hunting appears for the first time in the archeological record along with Homo erectus.

Perfected through trial and error, the hand axe would not necessarily have replaced preexisting projectile or handheld weapons, because weapons and strategies probably varied with the predator being deterred or the game being hunted. Hand axes would have been especially effective in a collective strategy, such as a group of hunters bombarding a herd. To overcome any difficulty in transporting hand axes, Homo erectus could have used carrying slings made from hide, stockpiled hand axes near hunting areas, or cached them (in caves, for example) prior to seasonal migrations.

Hunting near water, where game is relatively predictable and often concentrated, offers a simple explanation of why hand axes are recovered there in abundance -as well as the phenomenon of hand axes embedded on edge in situ. Hand axes that missed their mark, landing in water or dense vegetation on the banks of a river, might have been difficult or impossible to retrieve. Over time, with continued exploitation of an area, projectiles would accumulate like golf balls in a water trap. Elsewhere across the landscape, retrieval is more likely and the hand axe should be rare. This distribution pattern, as noted by English archeologist L.H. Keeley, resembles that of the Indian projectile points across the American Southwest. (Keeley, however, does not believe that the hand axe was a projectile.)

Homo erectus, like later Homo sapiens, was physically defenseless compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. Relatively slow, without canines, claws, tusks, or other natural means of defense, these early humans were easy prey when out of a tree. With handheld weapons they could defend themselves, once attacked. With projectile weapons they could wound, maim, or kill without making physical contact, avoiding assault or retaliation. Modern humans are notoriously expert at killing from a distance. The hand axe may be proof that this behavioral strategy was refined long ago, at a time when truly "giants strode the earth" - when by dint of size the megamammals of the Pleistocene asserted their dominance, when migrating game might pass in a continuous parade for days without a break in their ranks, and humankind struggled to survive, both consumer and consumed. At the other end of time, at the dawn of history, is it possible that the ancient Greeks preserved as a sport a tradition handed down from that distant yesterday?


Eileen M. O'Brien is a research associate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Georgia. This article was first published in Natural History, July 1984.


************************************************************



On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > CD:
>
>
>
> > This was a battlefield. And these were battle implements strewn about as
>
> > one might find on any battlefield. This was war. And it was also
>
> > agriculture in that their enemy was not other humans but other large food-
>
> > competitor species. In those days war and agriculture (pest control) were
>
> > one and the same.
>
> >
>
> > These were not hunting tools/weapons. These were battlefield
>
> > tools/weapons..

I figured it out. I now think I know exactly what these were used for. I will not explain it here but in another post. But I'll give you some hints. They were NOT projectile weapons.


>
> >
>
> > Their opponents came in herds. They were thick-skinned, large herbivores
>
> > that weren't bothered much by blunt rocks--thus the reason hominids
>
> > manufactured sharp edged weapons. Their (hominids) goal was not so
>
> > much to kill them as it was to divert them. And it was a matter of life and
>
> > death for the community as a whole because if they became overrun their
>
> > garden-based food resources would be depleted and the whole community
>
> > might not survive the dry season (and it's very dramatic predatory
>
> > implications).
>
> >
>
> > They had lines with a center and a left and right flank. If their lines were
>
> > breached they would fall back and re-establish a new line. It was mostly
>
> > important that they protected their core territory, which had the best
>
> > garden habitat.
>
> >
>
> > Early hominids were not hunters. They were warriors/agriculturalists.
>
> > They lived in communities and protected the territory viciously, not unlike
>
> > how we do presently.
>
>
>
> Your 'theory' is so half-witted (in every respect)
>
> that it does not deserve a response.
>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Why? Because it makes sense? Because it explains the behaviors that us humans actually possess?
>
>
>
> Nothing you state remotely begins to explain
>
> the distinctive aspects of these fossils.
>
> Firstly most of the 'weapons' are much too
>
> small to have any effect when thrown at a
>
> herbivore.

I agree. Moreover these were some pretty big beasts. And they ran in large herds. Hominids really would have had a difficult time having much effect on these beasts.

>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Too small? I've seen some that look like they weigh 30 lbs. These were defensive weapons. Their goal was to divert the herd. And this was a battlefield, in a strategic location. This is why they are found in such high concentration in this area.
>

It was a battlefield. And it was agriculture--pest control.

Surviving the dry season was their primary concern.

>
>
> How do you explain the distribution of these implements? Do you have anything?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, why are they present in
>
> such enormous quantities?

This is a good question. Each community must have literally had thousands of these things. And that means they served some specific purpose. And it seems reasonable to assume that this specific purpose had something to do with the large food competitors because that purpose seems to have disappeared with the extinction of these large food competitors. So what could that specific functional purpose have been? And why did they have so many?

I know the answer.



Third, why are
>
> nearly all of them in pristine condition?

Yes. This observation pretty much eliminates any possibility that they functioned as hand tools. Another observation that dovetails with this is the fact that they had sharp edges all the way around the circumference. If they were hand tools this wouldn't be the case.

The mystery builds. What were these used for?

Another observation (clue) is the almond shape? Why the almond shape? What function could this possibly serve? Again, I know the answer. But I'll give you a hint: In situ these implements are often found point down, vertical--as if they were placed there deliberately. Why is that? What functional benefit could our garden-habitat guarding earliest ancestors have gained from such. Think about it.

The correct answer makes perfect sense.



>
>
>
> CD:
>
> You have questions. I have answers. You have no answers.
>
>
>
> It was a battlefield. Not a hunting field. Things get lost in battles. Things rarely get lost when hunting.

I now realize this isn't a good explanation. Things get lost in battle, but I now realize that these were not projectiles. And it's pretty absurd to suggest that so many of these would become lost in battle.

The quantity of these things is the biggest clue of all. Again, each community must have had thousands of these things.

>
>
>
> At least, the PA people occasionally admit
>
> that they have no explanation. (Agreed many
>
> are pretty awful and put forward garbage
>
> theories as nonsensical as yours)

LOL. And you think poisoning predators by putting these in fresh kills is a good explanation?

>
>
>
> CD:
>
> So, what is your theory? or is it a secret?

Face it Paul. You are stumped.

>
>
>
> > http://www.vera-eisenmann.com/IMG/pdf/kathu-Porat_et_al.pdf
>
> >
>
> > " . . The precise mechanisms that led to the concentration of lithic
>
> > material and fauna within the vents remains unclear and neither
>
> > Beaumont (1990, 2004) nor Butzer (1984a,b) offered any explicit
>
> > explanation.
>
>
>
> Note the above and try to have some semblance
>
> of a scientific attitude. When you don't have
>
> an explanation, just admit it.

I admit my original explanation had some shortcomings. But now I've solved the puzzle. Nevertheless I have the context correct. These are agricultural implements. They function is pest control of hominid garden habitat. They are not projectile weapons. Yet these communities were in a constant state of war with inmigrating large food competitors. Surviving the dry season was the most important thing for the community as a whole.

>
>
>
> CD:
>
> Hominids were in a state of constant war with just about every other species, or, at least, every other species that wanted access to their garden habitat during the depths of the dry season. The tides of war can shift very dramatically and very suddenly. What's left behind can be hard to explain. The communities that failed in this endeavor were decimated. They went extinct. This explains why these observations don't make sense.
>
>
>
> After the extinction of a community the locality might remain uninhabitated for X number of years before it was repopulated. These observations make no sense in the context of the hunter/gatherer paradigm because the hunter/gatherer paradigm is wrong. Hominids are communal, territorial, agricultural, warrioristic. H/G is wrong. Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis is right.

H/G is wrong. EGH is right. Solving this puzzle will demostrate the validity of EGH.

One last hint:
How are these large, lumbering food competitor species vulnerable. What is their achilles heel(this is almost too good of a hint)? What is their weakness. How could hominids keep these beasts out of their garden habitat? Keep in mind, if left unchecked these animals could literally rip down every tree in their garden habitat. But they could be stopped if you know the weakness.

I left you a lot of clues, Paul. Think about it. I know you can solve the puzzle. I suggest you reread one of the papers you quoted above. Let me give you a link:
I can't find the link at the moment. But it was the one that you quoted in which the author (She had a Irish last name.) mentioned these implements being found point down in situ and she mentioned they seemed to circumvent more well watered (garden) habitat. (This is another big clue.)

I guarantee you, Paul. That if you put some thought into this you will figure it out. I'll give you some time before I provide you the solution.

*********************** END OF NOTES *****************




HERE IS THE ANSWER:

These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden habitat. In rocky soil they were placed point up. In regular soil they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact that the vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, that encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would literally be stopped. Some of them might even be crippled, attacked, and killed by hominids.

It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" as fences was a revolutionary development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

This explanation fits *all* of the facts:
1) It explains why they produces so many of them
2) It explains why they put so much care into their design
3) It explains why they have an almond shape
4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ
5) It explains why they are found encompassing what was garden habitat
6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
8) It explains why they are found miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused, transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen them from each other.)

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/26/2013 2:08 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:

<snip>

You know what would have worked even better for that purpose? The flakes
that were taken off the blanks that became the handaxes. They would have
been sharper, easier to make, and easier to place. And they could have
easily been planted in depth, like a mine field, rather than in an
easily-stepped-over line, like a fence.

Or, and stick with me here, because it's a stunner:

They could have been the 'Swiss Army Knife' of the Pleistocene, like
folks have thought all along.

[Claudius Denk]

That would have been like gravel to these animals. The bottom of an elephants foot, for example, is pretty tough. You need something pretty long and sharp to pierce it.

> They would have
>
> been sharper, easier to make, and easier to place.

Easier to place? How so?

> And they could have
>
> easily been planted in depth, like a mine field, rather than in an
>
> easily-stepped-over line, like a fence.

I never stated they were placed in a line. Why couldn't hand axes have been placed like a mine field? That is how I envision it.

>
>
>
> Or, and stick with me here, because it's a stunner:
>
>
>
> They could have been the 'Swiss Army Knife' of the Pleistocene, like
>
> folks have thought all along.

You're not following. Read the notes:
Why so many? Billions. (How many swiss army knives does one need?)
Why the distribution around garden habitat?
Why the distinctive almond shape?
Why are they sometimes found in vertical position in situ? (If they were hand tools this would never happen.)
Why are so many of them found in pristine condition? (Hand tools would be worn.)
Why are they sharpened all the way around the perimeter? How usefuls would such be as a hand tool?

Read the notes carefully before you respond?

[Paul Crowley]

On 26/07/2013 20:54, Tom McDonald wrote:

> On 7/26/2013 2:08 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> HERE IS THE ANSWER:
>>
>> These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden
>> habitat. In rocky soil they were placed point up. In regular soil
>> they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact
>> that the vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the
>> bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, that
>> encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would
>> literally be stopped. Some of them might even be crippled, attacked,
>> and killed by hominids.
>>
>> It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these
>> food competitor species were for Homo Erectus. The use of these
>> "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of
>> these "hand axes" as fences was a revolutionary development that
>> allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

Jim's post did not reach my server, which is
why I am replying here.

>> This explanation fits *all* of the facts: 1) It explains why they
>> produces so many of them

No. It does not. These objects are in the ground
in dense layers. Each of them takes a lot of time,
and trouble to make. They have to be brought to
the site. IF the hominids had been putting them
in the ground themselves, and then come back
to find them covered (with vegetation or sand-
blown dust) they'd have simply dug them up
(they'd be in lines and easy to find). Then they
could re-arrange them to form their 'fence' or
whatever it was.

>> 2) It explains why they put so much care into their design

a) IF the hominids had been placing them in
the ground with a sharp edge facing up, then
that's how they would often have been found.
They would (presumably) have been put down
in mats of 'cobblestones' with sharp points. But
nothing like that has ever been seen -- amid the
billions found.

b) IF one sharp edge (or one sharp point) had
been all that was needed -- as would seem from
this theory -- then they would not have had a
sharp edge all around their circumference, as
is the standard pattern.

>> 3) It explains why they have an almond shape

Doesn't work at all. A flat almond on the ground,
with an edge or point up, will fall over and its edge
is no longer upward. If anything, they'd have been
round. Cobblestones are not almond shape.

>> 4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ

Quite wrong, These 'tools' are sometimes found
in a vertical orientation -- with their sharp end
downwards. Not the other way around.

>> 5) It explains why they are found encompassing
>> what was garden habitat

Sorry, but there is nothing like that. They are
most commonly found in 'depressions' i.e.
lake or river beds.

>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter

Nonsense. The bit of the 'tool' that is furthest
from the animal's foot does not need to be
sharp.

>> 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not
>> tools, they were not projectiles)

If they had functioned as a 'fence' then many
would have been damaged by the supposed
'invaders'.

>> 8) It explains why they are found
>> miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused,
>> transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen
>> them from each other.)

Why were billions (in pristine condition) left in the
ground?

> You know what would have worked even better for that purpose? The flakes
> that were taken off the blanks that became the handaxes. They would have
> been sharper, easier to make, and easier to place. And they could have
> easily been planted in depth, like a mine field, rather than in an
> easily-stepped-over line, like a fence.

IF they had functioned as a 'fence', then that use
was extraordinarily effective and popular -- in that
it was employed (almost) throughout the inhabited
world -- no matter what the ground conditions,
and no matter what other material was available.
And this went on for millions of years. And then
stopped.

Why should such an effective 'fence' stop being
useful. Herbivores have invaded human crops
since humans (or their ancestors) first planted
them. They STILL invade human crops. But
barbed wire was not invented until the 1860s.
How come 'hand-axe fences' were not in use
then, and later? Why did they become
obsolete on every continent?

This theory does nothing whatever to explain the
extinction of the 18 species of large African
carnivore.

> Or, and stick with me here, because it's a stunner:
>
> They could have been the 'Swiss Army Knife' of the Pleistocene,
> like folks have thought all along.

That's not 'thought'. Anyone coming up with
such a 'theory' has presumably never seen
a 'hand-axe' nor understood their enormous
range in size, nor (possibly) seen a human
hand, nor ever used a swiss-army-knife, nor
done any kind of manual work themselves.

At least Jim has tried to come up with something
and he is (at least nominally) aware of the facts
that need an explanation. The Swiss-Army-Knife
'theory' does not begin to deal with any of the
salient (or even non-salient) aspects of the
problem.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On 26/07/2013 20:54, Tom McDonald wrote:

> On 7/26/2013 2:08 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> HERE IS THE ANSWER:
>>
>> These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden
>> habitat. In rocky soil they were placed point up. In regular soil
>> they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact
>> that the vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the
>> bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, that
>> encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would
>> literally be stopped. Some of them might even be crippled, attacked,
>> and killed by hominids.
>>
>> It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these
>> food competitor species were for Homo Erectus. The use of these
>> "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of
>> these "hand axes" as fences was a revolutionary development that
>> allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

PC:

Jim's post did not reach my server, which is
why I am replying here.

>> This explanation fits *all* of the facts: 1) It explains why they
>> produces so many of them

PC:

No. It does not. These objects are in the ground
in dense layers.

CD:
I don't see this as an objection, since my theory would suggest they'd be set up more like a mine field, maybe 15 feet deep, and this would evetually--after millions of years--result in most of them laying flat, look like a dense layer.

PC:

Each of them takes a lot of time,
and trouble to make.

CD:
I know. This is an observation that is difficult to reconcile. Especially with respect to how many of them were produced--each community must have had thousands of these on hand. It suggests they must have been producing these things constantly. It was a manufacturing process. It was something the whole community might be involved with in one way or another. They must have been highly valued. I would think they'd have had a big problem keeping people from other communities from stealing them. (I wonder if there is any evidence of them having some kind of brand or identification marking on them.)

PC:

They have to be brought to
the site. IF the hominids had been putting them
in the ground themselves, and then come back
to find them covered (with vegetation or sand-
blown dust) they'd have simply dug them up
(they'd be in lines and easy to find). Then they
could re-arrange them to form their 'fence' or
whatever it was.

CD:
Again, the word, "fence" may be what is misleading you. Obviously they would have to be set up so that they wouldn't be easily stepped over.

>> 2) It explains why they put so much care into their design

PC:

a) IF the hominids had been placing them in
the ground with a sharp edge facing up, then
that's how they would often have been found.
They would (presumably) have been put down
in mats of 'cobblestones' with sharp points. But
nothing like that has ever been seen -- amid the
billions found.

b) IF one sharp edge (or one sharp point) had
been all that was needed -- as would seem from
this theory -- then they would not have had a
sharp edge all around their circumference, as
is the standard pattern.

CD:
I don't necessarily disgree with either of these point. And I think that they themselves must have gone through a lot of trial and error trying to get this to work. They may have found, for example, that pointy rocks when placed point upward are knocked down too easily by the elephants whereas a biface with a sharpened edge around its perimeter is--especially when placed in the ground point down--is almost impossible to knock down by the elephants and still presents a cutting edge. Consider the possibility that for this to be a formidable deterent to elephants (and other large, flat-footed creatures) it has to bite not only into the foot of the elephant but also into the ground. It has to be anchored.

Also keep in mind that elephants would have been desperate to defeat this obstacle, and they have hard toenails. Sharp points sticking out of the ground might have been defeated too easily. A collection of bifaces, arranged in a line fifteen feet wide would be very difficult for a herd of desperate herbivores to defeat.

>> 3) It explains why they have an almond shape

PC:

Doesn't work at all. A flat almond on the ground,
with an edge or point up, will fall over and its edge
is no longer upward. If anything, they'd have been
round. Cobblestones are not almond shape.

CD:
As I eluded to above, an almond shape with a sharp perimeter all around that is placed point down would be difficult for the elephants to defeat. It may have taken hundreds of years of trial and error to figure this out but eventually they would have arrived at this design, theoretically.

>> 4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ

PC:

Quite wrong, These 'tools' are sometimes found
in a vertical orientation -- with their sharp end
downwards. Not the other way around.

CD:
Yes, (see above). I explained this. Sharp point down would anchor them, making them harder to defeat by the invading herbivore.

>> 5) It explains why they are found encompassing
>> what was garden habitat

PC:

Sorry, but there is nothing like that. They are
most commonly found in 'depressions' i.e.
lake or river beds.

CD:
Well, possibly. There certainly is a bias toward moving water that needs to be explained. In Eileen M. O'Brien's paper she states: " . . . except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed. Elsewhere across the landscape, hand axes are rare, although they are occasionally found in some numbers m prehistoric cave sites. This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency."

Note that Eileen refers to a specific instance of "large hand axes" being deposited in water at a point 400,000 years ago. That seems more recent, and it may have been more specific to hippo or crocodile mitigation. She also refers to a general tendency for hand axes in general (of all sizes) to be found near (not in) water features which is, IMO, consistent with garden habitat.

>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter

PC:

Nonsense. The bit of the 'tool' that is furthest
from the animal's foot does not need to be
sharp.

CD:
As I explained above, I think that too needs to be sharp in order to defeat elephants desire to defeat it by kicking it. A sharp point would anchor it better.

>> 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not
>> tools, they were not projectiles)

PC:

If they had functioned as a 'fence' then many
would have been damaged by the supposed
'invaders'.

CD:
I don't think so. Consider cattle crossings at roads. Cows don't often get stuck in these because the cow can see what would happen if they did and they just avoid it. Elephants know better than to step on a sharp rock.

>> 8) It explains why they are found
>> miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused,
>> transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen
>> them from each other.)

PC:

Why were billions (in pristine condition) left in the
ground?

CD:
This is two questions, why did they make billions of these? I explained why they would need thousands in each community, and considering the breath of time and that there were thousands of communities . . . billions.

PC:
Why did they leave them there? when they no longer had a use for them why would they bother moving them? They'd just be left there to be trampled over thousands and thousands of years. They'd be forgotten.

> You know what would have worked even better for that purpose? The flakes
> that were taken off the blanks that became the handaxes. They would have
> been sharper, easier to make, and easier to place. And they could have
> easily been planted in depth, like a mine field, rather than in an
> easily-stepped-over line, like a fence.

PC:

IF they had functioned as a 'fence', then that use
was extraordinarily effective and popular -- in that
it was employed (almost) throughout the inhabited
world -- no matter what the ground conditions,
and no matter what other material was available.
And this went on for millions of years. And then
stopped.

CD:
Yes, extraordinarily effective and extraordinarily necessary.

PC:

Why should such an effective 'fence' stop being
useful. Herbivores have invaded human crops
since humans (or their ancestors) first planted
them. They STILL invade human crops. But
barbed wire was not invented until the 1860s.
How come 'hand-axe fences' were not in use
then, and later? Why did they become
obsolete on every continent?

CD:
Well, that's an excellent question. My thinking is that this and other human techniques were so successful at monopolizing garden habitat that it resulted in the extinction of many of the large, lumbering, soft-footed herbivores leaving behind a lot of hooved but smaller species. These "hand axe" fences would have been useless against hooved animals.

These hooved speciesthat still competed with hominids but could be defeated with more traditional fences (elephants would just rip down a standard fence).

PC:

This theory does nothing whatever to explain the
extinction of the 18 species of large African
carnivore.

CD:
When their primary prey went extinct (due to the factors mentioned above) they would soon follow.

> Or, and stick with me here, because it's a stunner:
>
> They could have been the 'Swiss Army Knife' of the Pleistocene,
> like folks have thought all along.

PC:

That's not 'thought'. Anyone coming up with
such a 'theory' has presumably never seen
a 'hand-axe' nor understood their enormous
range in size, nor (possibly) seen a human
hand, nor ever used a swiss-army-knife, nor
done any kind of manual work themselves.

CD:
Right, and it's not like the issues haven't been discussed extensively in the literature. What follows was copied from non other than Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe

"As most hand axes have a sharp border all around, there is no firm agreement about their use. The pioneers of the study of Palaeolithic tools first suggested that bifaces were used as axes or at least for use in hard physical activities. The idea soon arose that the hand axe was a multi-functional tool and not only this, in addition it was realised that the different forms and shapes of the many known examples make them in effect what is colloquially known as the Achelean «Swiss Army knife». Each type of tool could have been used for a number of different tasks.
Agarre de un bifaz.png
H.G. Wells proposed in 1899 that hand axes were used as missile weapons to hunt prey[9] – an interpretation supported by Professor William H. Calvin of University of Washington, in Seattle who has suggested that some of the rounder examples of Achelean hand axes were used as hunting projectiles or as «killer frisbees» meant to be thrown at a herd of animals at a water hole so as to stun one of them. This assertion was inspired by findings from the Olorgesailie archaeological site in modern Kenya.[10] There are few indications of hand axe hafting, and some artifacts are far too large for that. However a thrown hand axe would not usually have penetrated deeply enough to cause very serious injuries. Additionally many hand axes are very small. There is very little evidence of impact damage in most handaxes.

PC:
At least Jim (Claudius) has tried to come up with something

[JTEM]

A study in WRONG!

Tom McDonald wrote:

> They could have been the 'Swiss Army Knife' of the Pleistocene, like
> folks have thought all along.

If that's half an answer then it's the smaller
half. Seriously, you might as well say "God
did it," because that would leave fewer unanswered
questions...

We should be digging them up by the billions, as you
know, and quite frankly we do not.

So, "They were the swiss army knife of the pleistocene"
doesn't cut it. Nope. What you need to say is
something like:

"They were the swiss army knife of the pleistocene, and
there wasn't much use for swiss army knives back then."

Or...

"They were the swiss army knife of the pleistocene, and
for some reason we're digging in the Italy of the
pleistocene, where the swiss army wasn't camped, instead
of in pliestocene's equivalent to Switzerland."

See the problem now?



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> HERE IS THE ANSWER:
>
>
>
> These were fences.

Then there should be tens of billions of them.

On average it would take about an acre to feed
one person a year, but that's today with much
more advanced techniques and a cherry picked
crop which has had larger yields squeezed out of
it though thousands of years of selective breeding.

Hunter-gatherers require significantly more land per
person...

If these were fences they'd need vast quantities --
enough to surround acres of land PER PERSON!

Seriously, you are the WORST troll. If you weren't
certain of your own stupidity, if you weren't
convinced that you're a moron you would have your
sock puppets dream up better ideas to shoot down.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Paul Crowley]

On 27/07/2013 02:38, Claudius Denk wrote:

>>> HERE IS THE ANSWER:
>>>
>>> These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden
>>> habitat. In rocky soil they were placed point up. In regular soil
>>> they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact
>>> that the vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the
>>> bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, that
>>> encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would
>>> literally be stopped. Some of them might even be crippled, attacked,
>>> and killed by hominids.
>>>
>>> It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these
>>> food competitor species were for Homo Erectus. The use of these
>>> "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of
>>> these "hand axes" as fences was a revolutionary development that
>>> allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

>>> This explanation fits *all* of the facts: 1) It explains why they
>>> produces so many of them
>
> PC:
> No. It does not. These objects are in the ground
> in dense layers.
>
> CD:
> I don't see this as an objection, since my theory would suggest they'd be set
> up more like a mine field, maybe 15 feet deep, and this would evetually--after
> millions of years--result in most of them laying flat, look like a dense layer.

This is just silly. Early hominids were not going
to build such a labour-intensive barrier (15 feet
high or 15 feet deep or whatever) made up of
'hand-axes' -- with every one of those tools
having pristine sharp edges.

The rest of your 'explanations' are just as
ridiculous. I am not wasting my time on them.


Paul,

[Claudius Denk]

Gee golly, what a surprise.

I have a big advantage that none of the rest of you have. I am not emburdened by hunter/gatherer notions. These notions are silly nonsense based on the fact that hominid fossils are found in areas that are currently dry and treeless. Early hominids are only associated with garden habitat.

Why is garden habitat called garden habitat? Because it has to be guarded. For hominids garden habitat is their vessel to survive the dry season and it's extremely dramatic predatory implications. Here's a big clue: What is the setting of the first chapter of the Bible?

Pest control was their biggest problem and elephants and animals similar to elephants were the biggest problem of all. Stopping them was the key to maintaining a population and expanding into new lands. To them stopping elephants and large herds of elephants and similar animals was like the space program to us. It was a big deal.

And it was very much a competitive thing between communities. A community that could deflect or dissuade inmigrating species made the problem worse for their neighbor communities.

The first person/hominid to discover that inmigration could be controlled or inhibited by placing sharp rocks sticking up out of the ground would have been a hero.

There would have been a kind of arms race. Elephants would have learned to defeat some of these rocks by kicking them. The designs that evolved were those that were harder to defeat by the elephants. I suspect that this is why the design evolved to the distinctive almond shape, with the point sticking down into the ground.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>

> HERE IS THE ANSWER:
>
> These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden habitat. In rocky soil they were placed

A fence a few inches high? snicker

And what about the labor? How many hominids working how many years to do
this???
What happens in the time it takes to build this? Wouldn't those mean ol beasts
just go right on by?

> point up. In regular soil they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact that the
> vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, > that encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would literally be stopped. Some of them

Prove it. Especially since you say the sharp end WAS IN THE GROUND.

Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AXzt8ZK5E

The front of the elephant's foot would brush aside your "fence".

What about keeping out, say cape buffalo?

> might even be crippled, attacked, and killed by hominids.
>
> It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo > Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" >as fences was a revolutionary development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

So where is the evidence for these fences?

> This explanation fits *all* of the facts:
> 1) It explains why they produces so many of them

Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

> 2) It explains why they put so much care into their design

Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

> 3) It explains why they have an almond shape

You mean, never used for chopping?

> 4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ

Evidence?

> 5) It explains why they are found encompassing what was garden habitat

Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter

For chopping?

> 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)

Chopping would do that too.

> 8) It explains why they are found miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused, transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen them from each other.)

What, crossing ALL that open ground carrying heavy rocks? Isn't that
against your "scenario"?

Or it explains why chopping was a necessary activity.

This paper is freely available

http://experimentalarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/taphonomic-identification-of-cut-marks-made-with-lithic-handaxes-an-experiment.pdf

Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an
experimental study
...
Microscopic phytolith residues found on handaxe edges from Peninj showed
that at least some handaxes were used for woodworking activities (
Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001).
...

Note that this paper has many cites of work on handaxes going back to the
1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe
...
Evidence from wear analysis
...

[Claudius Denk]

On Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:38:05 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> >
>
>
>
> > HERE IS THE ANSWER:
>
> >
>
> > These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden habitat. In rocky soil they were placed
>
>
>
> A fence a few inches high? snicker

Think of it more as a mine field. "Fence" was metaphorical. (I always have to remember I'm dealing with anthro majors.)

>
>
>
> And what about the labor? How many hominids working how many years to do
>
> this???

A lot.

>
> What happens in the time it takes to build this? Wouldn't those mean ol beasts
>
> just go right on by?

At first, yes, of course.

>
>
>
> > point up. In regular soil they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact that the
>
> > vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, > that encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would literally be stopped. Some of them
>
>
>
> Prove it. Especially since you say the sharp end WAS IN THE GROUND.

The pointy end was in the ground. it was sharpened all around the perimeter.

>
>
>
> Watch:
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AXzt8ZK5E
>
>
>
> The front of the elephant's foot would brush aside your "fence".

I addressed this issue, you idiot. Read what I wrote. Read the whole thing. Read the notes. Think about it. And respond when you are sober.

At first they probably did just put sharp rocks in the ground. But, as you suggest, this would be defeated too easily by the elephant just knocking it down, or even ripping it out with it's trunk. After hundreds and even thousands of years they would have eventually arrived at the almond shaped design because this was more difficult for the elephant to defeat and because it was something that could be moved and replanted relatively easily.

> What about keeping out, say cape buffalo?

Cape buffalo don't rip down or eat from trees. And They can be hunted.

>
>
>
> > might even be crippled, attacked, and killed by hominids.
>
> >
>


It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo > Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" >as fences was a revolutionary development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.



>
>
>
> So where is the evidence for these fences?

Read upthread.

>
>
>
> > This explanation fits *all* of the facts:
>
> > 1) It explains why they produces so many of them
>
>
>
> Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->
>
>
>
> > 2) It explains why they put so much care into their design
>
>
>
> Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->
>
>
>
> > 3) It explains why they have an almond shape
>
>
>
> You mean, never used for chopping?

Read the notes.

>
>
>
> > 4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ
>
>
>
> Evidence?

Read the note, you idiot.

>
>
>
> > 5) It explains why they are found encompassing what was garden habitat
>
>
>
> Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->
>
>
>
> > 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>
>
>
> For chopping?
>
>
>
> > 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
>
>
>
> Chopping would do that too.
>
>
>
> > 8) It explains why they are found miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused, transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen them from each other.)
>
>
>
> What, crossing ALL that open ground carrying heavy rocks? Isn't that
>
> against your "scenario"?

No.

>
>
>
> Or it explains why chopping was a necessary activity.

Then you should make an argument to that effect.

>
>
>
> This paper is freely available
>
>
>
> http://experimentalarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/taphonomic-identification-of-cut-marks-made-with-lithic-handaxes-an-experiment.pdf
>
>
>
> Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an
>
> experimental study
>
> ...
>
> Microscopic phytolith residues found on handaxe edges from Peninj showed
>
> that at least some handaxes were used for woodworking activities (
>
> Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001).

Why go through the trouble of making so many of them, though. Read the paper by Eilleen O;brien. Read it carefully. Read it slowly. Read it when you are sober.

>
> ...
>
>
>
> Note that this paper has many cites of work on handaxes going back to the
>
> 1970s.

Feel free to quote them.

>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe
>
> ...
>
> Evidence from wear analysis
>
> ...

Why so many (especially considering how hard they are to make)? Why so many in pristine condition? Why are they distributed near (encompassing) guarden habitat? Why are they so often found point down in situ? Why the distinctive almond shape? Why are they sharpened all around the perimeter? Why did their usage span such a long period of time and geographic area but, more recently, they are not used at all?

Why do I have to repeat all this? Read the notes.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Think of it more as a mine field. "Fence" was metaphorical.
> (I always have to remember I'm dealing with anthro majors.)

Which makes it even more idiotic. A thin line for a "Fence"
would require substantial numbers -- many billions over the
years -- but a "mine field" would require many times THAT.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Use your imagination. It would have to be deep (wide) enough that it couldn't be stepped over easily by whatever animal(s) you are trying to stop.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:


> Use your imagination. It would have to be deep (wide) enough
> that it couldn't be stepped over easily by whatever animal(s)
> you are trying to stop.

...which would require many thousands more than a thin
fence... many, many billions over the years... huge fields
of these things in place...

As is, we haven't nearly enough to account for the "Swiss
Army Knife" scenario, and your "Idea" requires many times
that number.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 11:29:08 AM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Use your imagination. It would have to be deep (wide) enough
>
> > that it couldn't be stepped over easily by whatever animal(s)
>
> > you are trying to stop.
>
>
>
> ...which would require many thousands more than a thin
>
> fence... many, many billions over the years... huge fields
>
> of these things in place...
>
>
>
> As is, we haven't nearly enough to account for the "Swiss
>
> Army Knife" scenario,

My understanding is that there are many times more found than can possibly be explained by the "Swiss Army Knife" scenario. If you want to dispute this then I suggest you put together an argument to that effect.

[Paul Crowley]

On 29/07/2013 05:38, RichTravsky wrote:

>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>
> For chopping?

Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?

Are any such tools on sale in hardware stores
today? If so, point to ONE image that we can
all see on the web.

OR explain what was the relevant change in
tool-use after the paleolithic. Did early hominids
have hard leather-like scales on the hand?
Or what?

>> 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
>
> Chopping would do that too.

How do you 'chop' with tiny almond-shaped 'hand-
axes'? How do you 'chop' with giant almond-
shaped 'hand-axes' that need two men to carry
them? -- And with all the other sizes that have
nothing to with any hominid hands that ever
existed.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090910.html

> This paper is freely available
>
>
http://experimentalarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/taphonomic-identification-of-cut-marks-made-with-lithic-handaxes-an-experiment.pdf
>
> Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an
> experimental study

Look up confirmation bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

The 'scientific' papers will publish anything -- no
matter how weak -- that they hope will confirm
their (often semi-crazy) theories. Did you know
that Archbishop Ussher (who worked out the
exact date and time of the Creation) was given
a state funeral? And this was by Cromwell, who
generally detested anything to do with the Church
of England, and especially its clergy.

> Note that this paper has many cites of work on handaxes going back to the
> 1970s.

What else would you expect?

Have you ever counted up the cites of the great
work of Archbishop Ussher? Or maybe you
should count the cites of the Book of Genesis.

Cites are not all they are cracked up to be -- by
bean- (or cite-) counting half-wits. Still I can
see that it's all you can do -- in the absence of
any grasp of the science.

An interesting parallel case is this paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6109/942

Apparently someone has found a few bits of
stone that _COULD_ maybe possibly have
been fixed onto wood and been spear tips.
Of course, no one (apart from our favourite
jeweller) bothers to notice the BILLIONS of
stone tools in the vicinity. It's like being in
the Grand Canyon, not noticing the huge hole
in the earth and focussing on a bit of wood
floating down the river that you decide (for
your own sweet reasons) could have been
a part of Noah's Ark.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 3:34:32 PM UTC-7, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 05:38, RichTravsky wrote:
>
>
>
> >> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>
> >
>
> > For chopping?
>
>
>
> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
>
> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?

Moreover, chopping is pretty intensive. We would expect to find evidence of broken hand axes a lot more than we do, IMO. And we'd expect to find evidence of wear patterns consistent with such. Eileen M. O'Briens examination seems fairly comprehensive.

It's quite a conundrum. Why go to so much trouble to make these things? Why make so many of them? Why the distinctive shape?

> Are any such tools on sale in hardware stores
>
> today? If so, point to ONE image that we can
>
> all see on the web.
>
>
>
> OR explain what was the relevant change in
>
> tool-use after the paleolithic. Did early hominids
>
> have hard leather-like scales on the hand?
>
> Or what?

Seems unlikely these were hand tools.

> >> 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
>
> >
>
> > Chopping would do that too.
>
>
>
> How do you 'chop' with tiny almond-shaped 'hand-
>
> axes'? How do you 'chop' with giant almond-
>
> shaped 'hand-axes' that need two men to carry
>
> them? -- And with all the other sizes that have
>
> nothing to with any hominid hands that ever
>
> existed.
>
>
>
> http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090910.html

That they are so big yet still maintain the almond shape just puts another layer in the conundrum. And why would these larger ones be found in the lake bed? Could it have something to do with the earth there being softer and, therefore, these more easily defeated by elephants so these were made bigger to compensate? Seems unlikely. But then everything about this seems unlikely.

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/29/2013 5:34 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 05:38, RichTravsky wrote:
>
>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>>
>> For chopping?
>
> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
>

Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists) have use both
original and newly-knapped hand axes. In their bare hands. Not
particularly hardened bare hands.

Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the researchers.

OTOH, if you had the capacity to have, say, 18 inches of sharpness, why
would you reduce that by, say, 25% if you didn't have to?

You know, sometimes the people who actually study this shit know what
they are talking about. And sometimes arrogant amateurs don't.

Guess which you are?

<snip>

[Claudius Denk]

On 7/29/2013 5:34 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 29/07/2013 05:38, RichTravsky wrote:
>
>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>>
>> For chopping?
>
> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
>
Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists) have use both
original and newly-knapped hand axes. In their bare hands. Not
particularly hardened bare hands.

Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the researchers.

CD:
Not according to some researchers. Read the notes upthread.

OTOH, if you had the capacity to have, say, 18 inches of sharpness, why
would you reduce that by, say, 25% if you didn't have to?

CD:
So that you wouldn't cut your hand.

You know, sometimes the people who actually study this shit know what
they are talking about.

CD:
Yes, which is why Paul quoted the literature. You should follow his example.

And sometimes arrogant amateurs don't.

Guess which you are?

CD:
MacDonald. If you think the evidence has been misinterpreted then feel free to put together an argument to that effect.

<snip>

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:


> My understanding is that there are many times more
> found than can possibly be explained by the "Swiss
> Army Knife" scenario.

My understanding is exactly the opposite: There aren't
enough to fit the "Swiss Army Knife" idea.

I think one problem here is that the term "Hand Axe"
is rather loosely applied. We think of something like
this:

http://www.cope.co.za/archaeo/masterhandaxe.htm

...but most would be vastly more crude, more
in line with this:

http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S030544031200043X-gr7.jpg

Just think of the numbers here: If the billions
required by the "Swiss Army Knife" model were
true, everyone in America could own three of them,
each, and that would still leave plenty for everyone
in Europe...

As has been revealed upthread, most of the "Tools"
left behind are flakes, and of those that are not
most wouldn't be recognizable as "Tools" except for
the context (i.e. a "Tool making site").


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Claudius Denk wrote:


> My understanding is that there are many times more
> found than can possibly be explained by the "Swiss
> Army Knife" scenario.

My understanding is exactly the opposite: There aren't
enough to fit the "Swiss Army Knife" idea.

Ha! Why would they need billions of these "swiss army knives" (something that takes a lot of effor to make) and then, suddenly, they don't need them at all any more? Moreover, their discontinued usage thereof just happens to coincide with the extinction of some large, herbivore food competitors and predators that preyed upon these herbivores. You about have to have you head up your ass for this to not scream out for some kind of explanation.

I think one problem here is that the term "Hand Axe"
is rather loosely applied. We think of something like
this:

http://www.cope.co.za/archaeo/masterhandaxe.htm

...but most would be vastly more crude, more
in line with this:

http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S030544031200043X-gr7.jpg

Just think of the numbers here: If the billions
required by the "Swiss Army Knife" model were
true, everyone in America could own three of them,
each, and that would still leave plenty for everyone
in Europe...

CD:
You are off on a tangent again, as usual.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Ha! Why would they need billions of these "swiss army knives"
> (something that takes a lot of effor to make) and then,
> suddenly, they don't need them at all any more?

There aren't "Billions," you idiot.

> Just think of the numbers here: If the billions
> required by the "Swiss Army Knife" model were
> true, everyone in America could own three of them,
> each, and that would still leave plenty for everyone
> in Europe...
>
>
>
> CD:
>
> You are off on a tangent again, as usual.

It's not a tangent, you jackass. It's an attempt
to get your various personalities to grasp the
scale here, the magnitude.

Just 1 billion hand axes would be enough to give
everyone in the United States three of them. Each
and every person could own three, and there'd
still be some left over. And we're not talking
just 1 billion, now are we?

Nope.

The idiot "Swiss Army Knife" model would require
well in excess of a billion alone, while your
brain fart would require tens of billions.

You should be able to buy these at the mall,
any mall. numbering in the billions, with
such a vast supply even forgeries would be
economically impossible. It would take far
more time & labor to produce a forgery then
to merely dig a few tens of thousands out of
the ground.

As I pointed out, and your illness blocked
you from grasping, when they say "Handaxe"
they don't mean that perfectly sculpted,
teardrop shaped object. The basically mean
ANYTHING that looks like it might have been
worked by an ancestor and it isn't a blade.

...or maybe sometimes they include blades
as well.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Ha! Why would they need billions of these "Swiss army knives"
> (something that takes a lot of effort to make) and then,

> suddenly, they don't need them at all any more?

There aren't "Billions," you idiot.

CD:
Believe what you want to believe. I'm going with what I read in what I quoted above.

> Just think of the numbers here: If the billions
> required by the "Swiss Army Knife" model were
> true, everyone in America could own three of them,
> each, and that would still leave plenty for everyone
> in Europe...

Your reasoning seems absurd to me. (Why would you use US, Europe as you model for 2.x mya? That's nonsense.) Believe what you want to believe. I think if the "Swiss Army Knife" model was valid we might expect to find a few hundred, not the thousands (and not the high density) that we do find.

> CD:
>
> You are off on a tangent again, as usual.

It's not a tangent, you jackass.

CD: It's as if you just imagine into existence whatever data you wish.

It's an attempt
to get your various personalities to grasp the
scale here, the magnitude.

Just 1 billion hand axes would be enough to give
everyone in the United States three of them. Each
and every person could own three, and there'd
still be some left over. And we're not talking
just 1 billion, now are we?

Nope.

The idiot "Swiss Army Knife" model would require
well in excess of a billion alone, while your
brain fart would require tens of billions.

You should be able to buy these at the mall,
any mall. numbering in the billions, with
such a vast supply even forgeries would be
economically impossible. It would take far
more time & labor to produce a forgery then
to merely dig a few tens of thousands out of
the ground.

CD: You are off on a tangent created by your own imagination.

As I pointed out, and your illness blocked
you from grasping, when they say "Handaxe"
they don't mean that perfectly sculpted,
teardrop shaped object. The basically mean
ANYTHING that looks like it might have been
worked by an ancestor and it isn't a blade.

...or maybe sometimes they include blades
as well.

CD:
You need to make more effort to anchor your thinking in the actual evidence. Applying the population of US to the problem and imagining that has any validity is the heart of silliness.

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/29/2013 10:00 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On 7/29/2013 5:34 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
>> On 29/07/2013 05:38, RichTravsky wrote:
>>
>>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>>>
>>> For chopping?
>>
>> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
>> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
>>
> Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists) have use both
> original and newly-knapped hand axes. In their bare hands. Not
> particularly hardened bare hands.
>
> Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the researchers.
>
> CD:
> Not according to some researchers. Read the notes upthread.
>

Just did. I saw nothing about researchers cutting their hands on stone
hand axes.

Perhaps I missed it due to your peculiar style of starting new threads
within existing threads.

Point me to the notes you refer to.

<snip>

[Paul Crowley]

On 30/07/2013 01:38, Tom McDonald wrote:

>>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>>>
>>> For chopping?
>>
>> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
>> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
>
> Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists)
> have use both original and newly-knapped hand axes. In
> their bare hands. Not particularly hardened bare hands.

That must be why you have so many double-
bladed knives (without handles) in your kitchen
and work-shop.

> Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the
> researchers.

It seems you'd believe anything.

> OTOH, if you had the capacity to have, say, 18 inches
> of sharpness, why would you reduce that by, say, 25%
> if you didn't have to?

Take a look at the knives (and other tools)
in your kitchen and workshop. You'll see
that 'adding' a handle to them nearly always
complicates the design and increases the
cost of manufacture. There are good
reasons why they are made that way, and
why they wouldn't sell if they were made
without handles.

'Reducing' the capacity for sharp edges
is never a problem when the raw material
is plentiful. Just pick up another stone
and put a single sharp edge on it.

> You know, sometimes the people who actually study
> this shit know what they are talking about. And
> sometimes arrogant amateurs don't.

The main reason I am around here (and not in
a group devoted to to a different (and working)
science, such as (say) medicine, chemistry
or physics, is that this one is a total mess.
It has not answered ONE question that an
intelligent layman would want to know.
(E.g Why and how did our ancestors
become bipedal? How did they cope with
predators? When and why did they evolve
language? Did they always go around in
tiny peripatetic groups? . . . etc., etc.)

When did you last see a discussion in a
'scientific' book or journal of why there are
billions of pristine 'hand-axes', often in
dense piles, scattered throughout (almost)
throughout the whole of the Old World?

They much prefer to 'find' a tiny number
of examples of possible 'hafting'. That's
the paper that gets published. Not the
one that demonstrates the massive
incompetence of the 'discipline'.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/30/2013 2:29 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 01:38, Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>>>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>>>>
>>>> For chopping?
>>>
>>> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
>>> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
>>
>> Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists)
>> have use both original and newly-knapped hand axes. In
>> their bare hands. Not particularly hardened bare hands.
>
> That must be why you have so many double-
> bladed knives (without handles) in your kitchen
> and work-shop.
>
>> Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the
>> researchers.
>
> It seems you'd believe anything.

I've seen a movie of an archaeological experiment where they butchered
an elephant using hand axes such as we've been discussing.

Guess what? They worked fine, and didn't cut up the experimenters' hands.

Also see this video on the butchering of a deer using a replica hand axe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiY4yefU9qQ

I can't open QuickTime movie files, but there are two movies in this
format linked to on this page. They are relevant to this discussion:

http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-RH-butchery.aspx

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/ml4h4t7

[Tom McDonald]

And:

World Archaeology

Volume 12, Issue 2, 1980
Special Issue: Early Man: some precise moments in the remote past
Select Language​▼
Translator disclaimer
Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for
Palaeolithic archaeology
Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for
Palaeolithic archaeology

Preview
Access options
DOI:10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789
Peter R. Jonesa
pages 153-165


Publishing models and article dates explained
Published online: 15 Jul 2010

"The author gives an interim account of his own experiments in
butchering carcasses, including goat and zebra, using stone tools which
he had made himself (replicating certain tool types common in Bed IV of
Olduvai Gorge). The butchery process was based on the traditional
Wakamba method of butchering goats, which is also described step by
step. The author found that for most tasks bifacial tools of substantial
size, including handaxes, were more efficient than small unretouched or
retouched flakes."


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789#.UfgifI3Cl7s

Or:

http://tinyurl.com/l6aynwb

[Claudius Denk]

> Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists)
> have use both original and newly-knapped hand axes. In
> their bare hands. Not particularly hardened bare hands.

CD:
This kind of reasoning is worthless because it doesn't tell us anything that isn't obvious.

That must be why you have so many double-
bladed knives (without handles) in your kitchen
and work-shop.

> Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the
> researchers.

CD:
So what. I'm sure you could eat off it also, but that doesn't prove its a plate.

It seems you'd believe anything.

CD:
For Tom it's all about avoiding having to think.

> OTOH, if you had the capacity to have, say, 18 inches
> of sharpness, why would you reduce that by, say, 25%
> if you didn't have to?

Take a look at the knives (and other tools)
in your kitchen and workshop. You'll see
that 'adding' a handle to them nearly always
complicates the design and increases the
cost of manufacture. There are good
reasons why they are made that way, and
why they wouldn't sell if they were made
without handles.

'Reducing' the capacity for sharp edges
is never a problem when the raw material
is plentiful. Just pick up another stone
and put a single sharp edge on it.

CD:
With Tom it's always necessary to explain the obvious.

> You know, sometimes the people who actually study
> this shit know what they are talking about. And
> sometimes arrogant amateurs don't.

The main reason I am around here (and not in
a group devoted to to a different (and working)
science, such as (say) medicine, chemistry
or physics, is that this one is a total mess.
It has not answered ONE question that an
intelligent layman would want to know.
(E.g Why and how did our ancestors
become bipedal? How did they cope with
predators? When and why did they evolve
language? Did they always go around in
tiny peripatetic groups? . . . etc., etc.)

CD:
How did they compete with food competitors?
How did they survive the dry season?
These are the questions that matter.

When did you last see a discussion in a
'scientific' book or journal of why there are
billions of pristine 'hand-axes', often in
dense piles, scattered throughout (almost)
throughout the whole of the Old World?

They much prefer to 'find' a tiny number
of examples of possible 'hafting'. That's
the paper that gets published. Not the
one that demonstrates the massive
incompetence of the 'discipline'.

CD:
When did these stop being valued and why? What changed? If they were the "Swiss Army knives" that some assume then why wouldn't they have continued being useful? Did this "change" coorelate with the extinction of large herbivores? Predators?

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Just did. I saw nothing about researchers cutting their hands on stone
> hand axes.

No, an exact quote reads:

"...the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with
force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much
damage on the user as on the material being worked."

> Perhaps I missed it due to your peculiar style of starting new threads
> within existing threads.

Plain as day.

Also about as obvious as you can get. I mean, who in
their right mind would need a cite to tell them that
a heavy object SHARPED ON ALL SIDES is potentially very
dangerous to the user?

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/30/2013 6:43 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> Just did. I saw nothing about researchers cutting their hands on stone
>> hand axes.
>
> No, an exact quote reads:
>
> "...the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with
> force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much
> damage on the user as on the material being worked."

Where was this quoted? I didn't see it in fairly extensive review of the
thread(s).

>> Perhaps I missed it due to your peculiar style of starting new threads
>> within existing threads.
>
> Plain as day.

Yup, you're right. I missed that. But there was so much to read through
to try to figure out what was meant, I'm not surprised.

> Also about as obvious as you can get. I mean, who in
> their right mind would need a cite to tell them that
> a heavy object SHARPED ON ALL SIDES is potentially very
> dangerous to the user?
>

The key word is 'potentially'. I've seen them used, and used hard, and
never seen the users cut by them.

I have also pressed an extremely sharp knife blade hard into the palm of
my hand without cutting it even a little. You can try that yourself if
you don't believe me. Just don't move it back and forth.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> On 7/30/2013 6:43 PM, JTEM wrote:

> > "...the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with
> > force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much
> > damage on the user as on the material being worked."
>
>
>
> Where was this quoted? I didn't see it in fairly extensive review of the
> thread(s).

The initial post.

> > Also about as obvious as you can get. I mean, who in
> > their right mind would need a cite to tell them that
> > a heavy object SHARPED ON ALL SIDES is potentially very
> > dangerous to the user?

> The key word is 'potentially'. I've seen them used, and used hard, and
> never seen the users cut by them.

You're assuming that they're being used the exact
same way...

The logical conclusion would be that is they bothered
with the time & effort to place an edge all around, it
had a purpose which made that edge useful. And you
certainly never saw one used in any way that made the
entire sharpened surface useful...

> I have also pressed an extremely sharp knife blade hard into the palm of
> my hand without cutting it even a little. You can try that yourself if
> you don't believe me. Just don't move it back and forth.

Kind of puts the lie into the "Handaxe" name, doesn't it?

Because holding that same blade like a handle while you
bang away with a heavy knife would certainly increase the
risk to your hand...


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

JTEM:

The logical conclusion would be that is they bothered
with the time & effort to place an edge all around, it
had a purpose which made that edge useful. And you
certainly never saw one used in any way that made the
entire sharpened surface useful...

CD:
Well stated.

> I have also pressed an extremely sharp knife blade hard into the palm of
> my hand without cutting it even a little. You can try that yourself if
> you don't believe me. Just don't move it back and forth.

JTEM:

Kind of puts the lie into the "Handaxe" name, doesn't it?

Because holding that same blade like a handle while you
bang away with a heavy knife would certainly increase the
risk to your hand...

CD:
Have you ever seen what a herd of elephant can do to a watering hole in the dry season? They get right into it. They can turn it into a mud hole--not to mention they can destroy and consume a lot of the foliage in the immediate area.

Suppose a hominid community wanted to preserve the pristine qualities of their local watering hole. What would they do? If they had a hundred or so of these "hand axes" they cold embed them in the watering hole, below the water line where they couldn't easily be avoided by the elephants.

They would be especially effective if they were installed point down, and if they had a sharpened perimeter such that even if they were stepped on off to the side they would dig into the elephants foot, on one side of the hand axe, and into the earth, on the other side of the hand axe. They would be a thorny problem that the elephants (and/or other large, flat footed species) might just prefer to avoid.

Keeping elephants and other similar species out of a hominid's preferred watering hole would have been a very, very big deal for these early hominids. It might have literally been the difference between whether or not the community as a whole survived the dry season and its predatory realities.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Keeping elephants and other similar species out of a hominid's
> preferred watering hole would have been a very, very big deal
> for these early hominids. It might have literally been the
> difference between whether or not the community as a whole
> survived the dry season and its predatory realities.

Well, again, the definition of "Handaxe" is quite fluid
here. Apparently it can be just about any rock tool that
isn't clearly a "Blade" of some sort -- maybe with an
edge all around, maybe just two edges...

Clearly there are some which are just WAY too big for
any of the usual purposes discussed. And just as clearly
meany of them seem abandoned in pristine condition --
something we would never expect if they were useful, let
alone actually USED.

I'm guessing that the purpose has not yet been worked
out.

I don't buy the elephant idea. If they kept Elephants
away from water sources then there would be no elephants.
And "Mining" the elephants would effectively be mining
themselves. A lot of these water sources aren't a
constant. They dried up or at least changed their shape
regularly -- with the seasons or when rains/drought were
severe. If these "handaxes" lasted to our own time then
they certain would have lasted from year to year to year.
Even after the first decade, navigating a "Mined" waterway
would be life threatening to out ancestors...



-- --

[Claudius Denk]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> Keeping elephants and other similar species out of a hominid's
> preferred watering hole would have been a very, very big deal
> for these early hominids. It might have literally been the
> difference between whether or not the community as a whole
> survived the dry season and its predatory realities.

Well, again, the definition of "Handaxe" is quite fluid
here. Apparently it can be just about any rock tool that
isn't clearly a "Blade" of some sort -- maybe with an
edge all around, maybe just two edges...

Clearly there are some which are just WAY too big for
any of the usual purposes discussed.

CD:
Did you see where those (the really large ones) were found? They were found in the lake bed.

And just as clearly
many of them seem abandoned in pristine condition --

something we would never expect if they were useful, let
alone actually USED.

CD:
Right. And if my theory is correct we'd expect them to have become discarded (ignored) at about the same time that a lot of the larger herbivores went extinct.

I'm guessing that the purpose has not yet been worked
out.

I don't buy the elephant idea.

CD:
I didn't feel like explaining to everybody what a chalcitherepes was. I used "elephant" for explanatory convenience. Just think big, flat footed, herbivorous creatures that used to dominate garden habitat.

If they kept Elephants
away from water sources then there would be no elephants.

CD:
Many large herbivores did go extinct, including Mammoth. Hominids have been implicated in their extinction.

And "Mining" the elephants would effectively be mining
themselves. A lot of these water sources aren't a
constant. They dried up or at least changed their shape
regularly -- with the seasons or when rains/drought were
severe. If these "handaxes" lasted to our own time then
they certain would have lasted from year to year to year.
Even after the first decade, navigating a "Mined" waterway
would be life threatening to out ancestors...

CD:
These would have been a threat only to large, heavy, flat footed creatures. These were little or no threat to hominids. Hominids are too small and nimble. Hominids would just rip them out of the ground if they were bothered by them.



-- --

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/31/2013 12:09 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2013 6:43 PM, JTEM wrote:
>
>>> "...the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with
>>> force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much
>>> damage on the user as on the material being worked."
>>
>>
>>
>> Where was this quoted? I didn't see it in fairly extensive review of the
>> thread(s).
>
> The initial post.
>
>
>>> Also about as obvious as you can get. I mean, who in
>>> their right mind would need a cite to tell them that
>>> a heavy object SHARPED ON ALL SIDES is potentially very
>>> dangerous to the user?
>
>> The key word is 'potentially'. I've seen them used, and used hard, and
>> never seen the users cut by them.
>
> You're assuming that they're being used the exact
> same way...
>
> The logical conclusion would be that is they bothered
> with the time & effort to place an edge all around, it
> had a purpose which made that edge useful. And you
> certainly never saw one used in any way that made the
> entire sharpened surface useful...

So you know my experience, do you? That's pretty funny.

BTW, that means I can safely ignore anything else you have to say on
this subject.

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/31/2013 12:47 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> JTEM: The logical conclusion would be that is they bothered with the
> time & effort to place an edge all around, it had a purpose which
> made that edge useful. And you certainly never saw one used in any
> way that made the entire sharpened surface useful...
>
> CD: Well stated.

Really? He knows what I have seen and experienced? That's what you
consider to be 'well stated'?

Fuck, you are dim.

Fucking hilarious.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> > The logical conclusion would be that is they bothered
> > with the time & effort to place an edge all around, it
> > had a purpose which made that edge useful. And you
> > certainly never saw one used in any way that made the
> > entire sharpened surface useful...

> So you know my experience, do you?

Yes.

> That's pretty funny.

You can't even bring yourself to deny it, and yet
you still want to argue the point. Grow up.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Really? He knows what I have seen and experienced?

Yes. And your fake "outrage" would be slightly more
convincing you experience, common sense or even
reading comprehension could have revealed the danger
of using a tool that's all blade, no handle.

What I'm saying here is that both your observational
skills and intellect are suspect.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Paul Crowley]

On 30/07/2013 21:34, Tom McDonald wrote:

> "The author gives an interim account of his own experiments in butchering
> carcasses, including goat and zebra, using stone tools which he had made
> himself (replicating certain tool types common in Bed IV of Olduvai Gorge).
> The butchery process was based on the traditional Wakamba method of
> butchering goats, which is also described step by step. The author found
> that for most tasks bifacial tools of substantial size, including handaxes,
> were more efficient than small unretouched or retouched flakes."

Which is a bit like saying that it's easier to hammer
nails with spoon rather than a fork. The author (like
everyone else) has no idea of the purpose for which
"bifacial tools of substantial size" were made, any
more than he has of what "small unretouched or
retouched flakes" were for.

> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789#.UfgifI3Cl7s


Paul.

[Jim McGinn]

"They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed."

Eileen M. O'Brien

CD:
Tom seems to not realize that we are just trying to incorporate these observations into the lager picture.

[Tom McDonald]

Idiot.

[Tom McDonald]

Yes, you are an idiot.

[Tom McDonald]

Except, of course, for the use wear analyses done on them, and the
experimental archaeology done to see what they might have been good for.

As opposed to the truly scientific way you approach things--by pulling
things out of your ass, and only being able to accept what you can imagine.

I'll take the science, thank you.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Idiot.

Wow, someone is helping you! I can tell.

...still falls short of admitting the truth,
that nobody even knows what they were used for
or even if they were used (they weren't a
ritual object), and here you are pretending that
you've seen people banging away with these things
like a axe -- HOLDING THE SHARPENED EDGE -- without
so much as a splinter...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

CD:
Well, I think Paul has done a good job of bringing to our attention a lot of anomolies in the evidence. I wasn't aware of a lot of this stuff. I'm just trying to make sense of it. So is Paul. So is JTEM. You'll note there is little overlap in our respective explanations. You should feel free to submit your own explanation. You could even argue that we are misinterpreting the evidence. But Paul brought referenced material into the conversation, I don't see how you can criticize him for that.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Except, of course, for the use wear analyses done on them,

Many of the ones in question have no wear use. at all.

> and the experimental archaeology done to see what
> they might have been good for.

Pure conjecture, at best.

> As opposed to the truly scientific way you approach things--by pulling
> things out of your ass, and only being able to accept what you can imagine.

Which is EXACTLY what you're describing, above.

Part of the problem here is that "Handaxe" encompasses
a number of very different things, and some of those
things -- the archetypes, the teardrop shaped stones
with edges all around -- were probably something extremely
different from other objects known today by the very same
name.

Idiot.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Yes, you are an idiot.

Which explains why you lack the maturity of
admitting the obvious: You can't use a
"Tool" with a blade for a handle to do anything
without risking injury to yourself.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

CD:

"The Acheulians or Early Stone Age humans took great
care in the shaping of stones, especially in the manufacture
of almond-shaped hand-axes."

"The axes are difficult to make, requiring
that great strength and precision be maintained over thirty to
a hundred and fifty procedures . . ."

"In South Africa they are
common, and there is one desolate field in the Kalahari
where billions of hand-axes and other stone tools lie in a
layer a metre deep, extending to the horizon . . . "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science

[Claudius Denk]

"Werdelin’s theory: the species that went extinct were specifically those species that were in direct competition with the hominins or that were threats to them—namely, omnivores with diets similar to that of the hominins . . . "

Werdelin's theory sounds a lot like my theory. I even include a habitat--garden habitat--and a strategy, communal territorialism.

[Claudius Denk]

> Many of the ones in question have no wear use. at all.

Yes, this is a particularly difficult observation to reconcile. especially considering the amount of effort they put into making these. And the uniformity of the design (almond shape).

> > and the experimental archaeology done to see what
>
> > they might have been good for.
>
>
>
> Pure conjecture, at best.
>
>
>
> > As opposed to the truly scientific way you approach things--by pulling
>
> > things out of your ass, and only being able to accept what you can imagine.
>
>
>
> Which is EXACTLY what you're describing, above.
>
>
>
> Part of the problem here is that "Handaxe" encompasses
>
> a number of very different things, and some of those
>
> things -- the archetypes, the teardrop shaped stones
>
> with edges all around -- were probably something extremely
>
> different from other objects known today by the very same
>
> name.

What do you mean by this?

[Paul Crowley]

On 01/08/2013 02:57, Tom McDonald wrote:

>>> "The author gives an interim account of his own experiments in butchering
>>> carcasses, including goat and zebra, using stone tools which he had made
>>> himself (replicating certain tool types common in Bed IV of Olduvai Gorge).
>>> The butchery process was based on the traditional Wakamba method of
>>> butchering goats, which is also described step by step. The author found
>>> that for most tasks bifacial tools of substantial size, including handaxes,
>>> were more efficient than small unretouched or retouched flakes."
>>
>> Which is a bit like saying that it's easier to hammer
>> nails with spoon rather than a fork. The author (like
>> everyone else) has no idea of the purpose for which
>> "bifacial tools of substantial size" were made, any
>> more than he has of what "small unretouched or
>> retouched flakes" were for.

> Except, of course, for the use wear analyses done on them,

Any remotely sensible 'wear analysis' would conclude
along the lines: "There are billions of these artefacts,
and nearly all show no wear whatsoever -- so we have
not got the faintest clue why they were made, nor
why they exist (in an apparently unused condition)
in such vast numbers".

> and the experimental archaeology done to see what they might have
> been good for.

When you pay no attention to the context (and
how often have you seen it set out?) there can be
no remotely sensible "experimental archaeology".

It's not impossible that there are a few real scientists
in the discipline -- who have refused to engage in
this kind of foolishness. But they don't get published.
All we ever hear about are these mindless
'experiments'.

> As opposed to the truly scientific way you approach things--by pulling
> things out of your ass, and only being able to accept what you can
> imagine.
>
> I'll take the science, thank you.

You don't know what 'science' is. The first step
in any serious investigation is to set out the
relevant facts -- not to blithely ignore them.


Paul.

[Claudius Denk]

Enough already, Paul. It's not like you have an explanation you are willing to stand by anyways.

[Tom McDonald]

On 7/31/2013 10:36 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> Yes, you are an idiot.
>
> Which explains why you lack the maturity of
> admitting the obvious: You can't use a
> "Tool" with a blade for a handle to do anything
> without risking injury to yourself.
>

Don't suppose you looked at the video of someone doing just that.

Or the reports of experimental archaeologists doing just that.

Or actually held one and saw for yourself what is and isn't possible.

No, I guess you didn't.

Idiot.

[Tom McDonald]

Idiot.

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:


> > Part of the problem here is that "Handaxe" encompasses
> > a number of very different things, and some of those
> > things -- the archetypes, the teardrop shaped stones
> > with edges all around -- were probably something extremely
> > different from other objects known today by the very same
> > name.

> What do you mean by this?

I've already explained a number of times: We use one
word -- "Handaxe" -- to describe many different things.
They don't all look the same (number of edges, for
example) and they clearly show very different investments
in time and energy... size... etc.

Personally I think the archetypes here were ritual
objects and/or status symbols... stone age scepters
or crucifixes. They might have even been the stone
aged equivalent to a religious idol.



-- --

http://jtem.tumble.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Idiot.

You are reduced to one-word responses,
mindless insults, unable to form
coherent thoughts let alone articulate
same. I'm just pointing this out in case
the irony was lost on anyone.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> On 7/31/2013 10:36 PM, JTEM wrote:

> > Which explains why you lack the maturity of
> > admitting the obvious: You can't use a
> > "Tool" with a blade for a handle to do anything
> > without risking injury to yourself.

> Don't suppose you looked at the video of someone doing just that.

Scientifically, that is known as "Being a freaking
imbecile."

We've banned lawn darts. Lawn darts. Wanna know
why? Too dangerous. Too serious a risk. Four whole
people died. Over years & years, countless thousands
and there was a grand total of 4 deaths.

More children are regularly killed by furniture.

So, yes, you might've once seen someone successfully
(safely) using an inherently dangerous item for a
purpose which could have (but wasn't necessarily)
related to it's intended purpose...

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!?

People safely handle Cobras and Rattle snakes.
People do all sorts of crazy, inherently unsafe
things and walk away unscathed. It happens all
the time. There used to be a TV series devoted
to nothing but: Jackass.

Oh. That title is a hint...

You claim to care about science & facts,
yet you not only cling to a (rather transparent)
fallacious argument, but you're suffering a
meltdown because others aren't buying it.

A tool with a sharp blade for a handle -- a blade
equally as sharp as any cutting surface -- is an
inherently dangerous item. It will result in
injury. Maybe not to everyone, maybe not every
time but injury is unavoidable.

If it can cut through animal flesh it could and it
did cut through the flesh of our ancestors, and we're
talking about a day & age before antibiotics, sutures
or even bandaids. If these things were used as you
claim they would result in injuries and even deaths.

No, not rarely. Frequently. Injuries would have
been frequent and deaths would have been regular.

PEOPLE CUT THEMSELVES WITH KNIVES ALL THE TIME!

And knives don't have blades for handles. They have
HANDLES. Get it? Even just a little?

It's IDIOTIC to suggest that so much time and work
went into creating a hazard -- A GUARANTEED SOURCE
OF INJURY -- when the alternative is so obvious...
not to mention less time consuming and requiring a
lot less work.

No pick up your brain, wipe off the snot and start
thinking. Thanks in advance.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

You could just have said, "I didn't watch the video or read the
reports". Would have saved a lot of innocent electrons.

[Tom McDonald]

There was no purpose to be served by being wordier.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:38:05 PM UTC-7, RichTravsky wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> > > HERE IS THE ANSWER:
> >
> > > These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden habitat. In rocky soil they were placed
> >
> > A fence a few inches high? snicker
>
> Think of it more as a mine field. "Fence" was metaphorical. (I always have to remember I'm dealing with anthro majors.)

IOW, you don't know the difference.

> > And what about the labor? How many hominids working how many years to do
> >
> > this???
>
> A lot.

Like how many ->

See, that would be what science does, research the labor and provide

estimates.

> > What happens in the time it takes to build this? Wouldn't those mean ol beasts
> > just go right on by?
>
> At first, yes, of course.

Ok, and then what? Wouldn't those poor poor hominids be wiped out in the
meantime???

> > > point up. In regular soil they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact that the
> >
> > > vulnerablility of these large, lumbering beasts was the bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, > that encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would literally be stopped. Some of them
> >
> > Prove it. Especially since you say the sharp end WAS IN THE GROUND.
>
> The pointy end was in the ground. it was sharpened all around the perimeter.

How did the hominids put them there if they were SOOOO sharp?

> > Watch:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AXzt8ZK5E
> >
> >
> >
> > The front of the elephant's foot would brush aside your "fence".
>
> I addressed this issue, you idiot. Read what I wrote. Read the whole thing. Read the notes. Think about it. And respond when you are sober.

You completely ignored it, you idiot. You must have been on one of your binges

when you posted.

> At first they probably did just put sharp rocks in the ground. But, as you suggest, this would be defeated too easily by the elephant just knocking it down, or even ripping it out with it's trunk. After hundreds and even thousands of years they would have eventually arrived at the almond shaped design because this was more difficult for the elephant to defeat and because it was something that could be moved and replanted relatively easily.

So how did those poor poor hominids survive during those "hundreds and even
thousands
of years "????

> > What about keeping out, say cape buffalo?
>
> Cape buffalo don't rip down or eat from trees. And They can be hunted.

So can elephants.

> > > might even be crippled, attacked, and killed by hominids.
>
> It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo > Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" >as fences was a revolutionary development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

It's hard for you to prove this problem even existed.

> > So where is the evidence for these fences?
>
> Read upthread.

Where you didn't post any evidence? Try again.

> > > This explanation fits *all* of the facts:
> >
> > > 1) It explains why they produces so many of them
> >
> > Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

Waiting.

> > > 2) It explains why they put so much care into their design
> >
> > Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

Waiting.

> > > 3) It explains why they have an almond shape
> >
> > You mean, never used for chopping?
>
> Read the notes.

Post it here so everyone can see it ->

> > > 4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Read the note, you idiot.

Post it here so everyone can see it ->

> > > 5) It explains why they are found encompassing what was garden habitat
> >
> > Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

Waiting.

> > > 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
> >
> > For chopping?

No response.

> > > 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
> >
> > Chopping would do that too.

No response.

> > > 8) It explains why they are found miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused, transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen them from each other.)
> >
> > What, crossing ALL that open ground carrying heavy rocks? Isn't that
> > against your "scenario"?
>
> No.

Why not?

> > Or it explains why chopping was a necessary activity.
>
> Then you should make an argument to that effect.

The microwear analysis does that for us.

> > This paper is freely available
> > http://experimentalarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/taphonomic-identification-of-cut-marks-made-with-lithic-handaxes-an-experiment.pdf
> >
> > Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an
> > experimental study
> > ...
> >
> > Microscopic phytolith residues found on handaxe edges from Peninj showed
> > that at least some handaxes were used for woodworking activities (
> >
> > Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001).
>
> Why go through the trouble of making so many of them, though. Read the paper by Eilleen O;brien. Read it carefully. Read it slowly. Read it when you are sober.

Provide the relevant quotes when you come down.

> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that this paper has many cites of work on handaxes going back to the
> > 1970s.
>
> Feel free to quote them.

The links are at the bottom of the paper where you can look them up. This
isn't a hand holding service.

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Evidence from wear analysis
> >
> > ...
>
> Why so many (especially considering how hard they are to make)? Why so many in pristine condition? Why are they distributed near (encompassing) guarden habitat? Why are they so often found point down in situ? Why the distinctive almond shape? Why are they sharpened all around the perimeter? Why did their usage span such a long period of time and geographic area but, more recently, they are not used at all?
>
> Why do I have to repeat all this? Read the notes.

Why can't you provide any evidence?

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:

>
> On 29/07/2013 05:38, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
> >
> > For chopping?
>

> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?

Razor sharp, eh?

Then how did they hold them to MAKE THEM?


Come back when you can answer that.

[Claudius Denk]

> It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo > Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" >as fences was a revolutionary development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

It's hard for you to prove this problem even existed.

CD:
Well, that's pretty much true for anything prehistory.

CD:
Reference?

> > This paper is freely available
> > http://experimentalarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/taphonomic-identification-of-cut-marks-made-with-lithic-handaxes-an-experiment.pdf
> >
> > Taphonomic identification of cut marks made with lithic handaxes: an
> > experimental study
> > ...
> >
> > Microscopic phytolith residues found on handaxe edges from Peninj showed
> > that at least some handaxes were used for woodworking activities (
> >
> > Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001).
>
> Why go through the trouble of making so many of them, though. Read the paper by Eilleen O;brien. Read it carefully. Read it slowly. Read it when you are sober.

Provide the relevant quotes when you come down.

> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that this paper has many cites of work on handaxes going back to the
> > 1970s.
>
> Feel free to quote them.

The links are at the bottom of the paper where you can look them up. This
isn't a hand holding service.

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Evidence from wear analysis
> >
> > ...
>
> Why so many (especially considering how hard they are to make)? Why so many in pristine condition? Why are they distributed near (encompassing) guarden habitat? Why are they so often found point down in situ? Why the distinctive almond shape? Why are they sharpened all around the perimeter? Why did their usage span such a long period of time and geographic area but, more recently, they are not used at all?
>
> Why do I have to repeat all this? Read the notes.

Why can't you provide any evidence?

CD:
So, uh, Travsky, you are not saying that you yourself have an explanatory scenario that you would like to submit. Right?

Well, if you ever come up with something feel free to present it here on this forum. Toodles.

[JTEM]

RichTravsky wrote:

> Razor sharp, eh?
> Then how did they hold them to MAKE THEM?
>
>
> Come back when you can answer that.

If they couldn't cut flesh, what were they used for?

Again, though it is screaming obvious I will point
out the fact that people today regularly cut themselves
with knives, and in our case the knives have dull
handles and you do NOT hold them by a blade designed
(or so we are assured) to cut flesh.

Putting a cutting edge all around guarantees injury.
Not for everyone, not absolutely every time they might
be used, but certainly enough so that no member of a
given population wouldn't be familiar with such injuries,
and give infection they had to be accustomed to death
resulting from such cuts.

According to this site, more than 57,000 people wind up
in emergency rooms every year, in America alone, all from
ACCIDENTAL knife wounds... and, again, modern knives don't
use blades as handles.

Seriously, people, we have children killed every year
from FURNITURE.

You don't invest a whole lot of extra time and effort
into producing a cutting tool where the handle is
one of the cutting surfaces. You don't. It's a guarantee
of accidents and, considering the lack of medicines and
technology, even death would be common enough (from
bleeding and/or infection).

Yes, some people have safely held Cobras and Rattle
Snakes. Some people have juggled axes and even chain
saws. Millions have gone into battles were people
were literally shooting at them and yet come out
unscathed. But these are all inherently dangerous,
and the fact that some people survived unharmed can
no more make a battlefield a safe place then some
dolt using a "handaxe" successful would make such a
"Tool" safe.

It's asinine to argue such a thing.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> You could just have said, "I didn't watch the video or read the
> reports".

...if I wanted to spare you the exposure to
facts and common sense. You can use the same
argument for men juggling chain saws -- "I saw it
in a video once, so that means there's nothing
inherently dangerous."

You're making a dumb argument. In fact, above, you're
not making any kind of an argument. It's an appeal to
an uncited authority.

Congratulations there, dumbing down an incredibly dumb
line of reasoning...

IF THEY CAN'T CUT YOU HAND THEN THEY CAN'T CUT ANIMAL
HIDE!

Using a cutting surface for a handle is a guarantee of
injury and in all probability DEATH.

You're arguing that people invested a lot of extra time
and effort into making what would otherwise be a
useful tool into an accident waiting to happen... only
to leave a good many of them behind without so much as
once using them.

It's dumb. It's beyond dumb.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

> You could just have said, "I didn't watch the video or read the
>
> reports". Would have saved a lot of innocent electrons.

CD:

[Paul Crowley]

I did watch the video. One guy using a very large
'hand-axe' to dismember a carcase, very very
slowly, and with much difficulty. He wasn't
so much 'cutting' as sawing and levering apart
bones and sinews.

The 'hand-axe' was clearly blunt, and he was
hopelessly slow. An intelligent early hominid,
faced with this task, would have used his
teeth. Or he would have made a fresh tool --
picking up a piece of (say) flint and producing
one sharp edge, -- and he'd have done the job
in a tenth of the time.

Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 02/08/2013 05:17, RichTravsky wrote:

>>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
>>>
>>> For chopping?
>>
>> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
>> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
>
> Razor sharp, eh?
>
> Then how did they hold them to MAKE THEM?
>
> Come back when you can answer that.

They made them with great care, no doubt
after years of practice, using leather-like
material to protect their hands and limbs.
It was, almost certainly, a particular skill
within a tribe, where one 'craftsman' spent
much of his time in a quarry, producing
them.

Using them was another matter. The only
thing we can say for certain is that they
were NOT intended for use for cutting and
chopping as in the 'swiss-army-knife'
model.


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

On 8/1/2013 11:48 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> You could just have said, "I didn't watch the video or read the
>> reports".
>
> ...if I wanted to spare you the exposure to
> facts and common sense. You can use the same
> argument for men juggling chain saws -- "I saw it
> in a video once, so that means there's nothing
> inherently dangerous."
>
> You're making a dumb argument. In fact, above, you're
> not making any kind of an argument. It's an appeal to
> an uncited authority.
>
> Congratulations there, dumbing down an incredibly dumb
> line of reasoning...
>
> IF THEY CAN'T CUT YOU HAND THEN THEY CAN'T CUT ANIMAL
> HIDE!

Here's an experiment you can try:

1. Get or make a hand axe;
2. Try using it, trying not to cut yourself;
3. Apologize to me.

Simple, really.

[Tom McDonald]

See? Admitting ignorance is the first step to becoming not a fucking idiot.

[Claudius Denk]

"Whatever its function, the hand axe represented to its users not only an investment of energy but also a source of raw material. They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed. Elsewhere across the landscape, hand axes are rare, although they are occasionally found in some numbers m prehistoric cave sites. This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency."
Eileen M. O'brien

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Here's an experiment you can try:
>
> 1. Get or make a hand axe;
> 2. Try using it, trying not to cut yourself;
> 3. Apologize to me.
>
> Simple, really.

Here's an experiment you can try:

1. Get or make a chef's knife.

2. Try using it, trying not to cut yourself;
3. Apologize to me.

Simple, really.

More than 57,000 people stuff our hospital
emergency rooms every year from ACCIDENTAL
wounds caused by knives.

Oh. Maybe I should add: None of these
knives employee a cutting surface as a
handle...

As i pointed out, and you so ignorantly
side stepped, people can safely juggle
chain saws. I've seen it. It's not a
safe thing to do. In fact, it's inherently
dangerous! And so isn't a cutting tool with
a cutting edge for a handle...

And, again: These things would be a
guarantee of accidents -- cuts, gashes,
bleeding and/or infections. We're not
talking about injuries as routine as was
seen on lawn darts (which had to be
banned out of safety concerns), we're
talking vastly more common...

Rushing. Distracted. Tired. Bored.
Angry and taking it out on the carcass
that you're butcher. Maybe just plain
unlucky. Etc.

Regular, routine injuries. Bleeding.
Infections. All this well before anything
approaching medical knowledge or technology.

These things supposedly cut through animal
hides, sinew and muscle -- THIS IS WHAT YOU
INSIST -- even as you tell is that using the
same blade as a handle poses no risk to
oneself...

It's idiocy. It's a blind adherence to a
popular notion. You're not thinking. You're
not even being logical. You're simply going
along with the crowd.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

Handaxes. Are. Not. Steel. Knives.

I don't think you grasp this simple point.

[Tom McDonald]

Ah yes, she of the 'handaxe as discus' hypothesis. Several decades out
of date, though inventive, I'll grant you.

[Claudius Denk]

> "Whatever its function, the hand axe represented to its users not
> only an investment of energy but also a source of raw material. They
> would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and
> retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would
> have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could
> then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone
> tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or
> lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record.
> Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites
> that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be)
> watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean
> site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of
> Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand
> axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what
> appears to have been a shallow stream bed. Elsewhere across the
> landscape, hand axes are rare, although they are occasionally found
> in some numbers m prehistoric cave sites. This suggests that during
> some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and
> lost with astonishing frequency." Eileen M. O'brien

TM:

Ah yes, she of the 'handaxe as discus' hypothesis. Several decades out
of date, though inventive, I'll grant you.

CD:
LOL. Well, maybe the ability to ignore evidence is one of the more recent developments trending in this obscure discipline.

Notice also that the possibility that these implements ("handaxes") might have been placed into this streambed deliberately never occurs to her. The notion that these ancient peoples might have had some reason to protect this source of fresh water from being infiltrated by other, large, and sometimes aggressive species is not even on her radar screen. This demonstrates a paradigmatic bias with respect to assuming that these early hominids were constantly mobile, hunter gatherers and not the communal, situated, and territorial creatures that is plainly evident in present-day hominids. It also demonstrates a bias in regards to being ignorant about the extent to which the dry season would have brought migratory animals competing for access to fresh water right when it was most essential to their survival.

Tom, other than vagueness and justification thereof, what contributions have you made to the discipline?

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Handaxes. Are. Not. Steel. Knives.

So you're back to the, "They cut through
animal hides, muscle & sinew but couldn't
damage the flesh of our ancestors" insanity...

Good one. Now pee on yourself. Keep us
laughing at you.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

On 8/3/2013 1:17 AM, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>> Handaxes. Are. Not. Steel. Knives.
>
> So you're back to the, "They cut through
> animal hides, muscle & sinew but couldn't
> damage the flesh of our ancestors" insanity...
>
> Good one. Now pee on yourself. Keep us
> laughing at you.
>

Don't suppose you've ever held one in your hand, have you?

I have.

Handaxes are not like steel knives.

[Claudius Denk]

Confirmation bias.

[Tom McDonald]

Physical evidence.

[Claudius Denk]

On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:36:43 PM UTC-7, Tom McDonald wrote:

> Physical evidence.

Bias isn't.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > So you're back to the, "They cut through
> > animal hides, muscle & sinew but couldn't
> > damage the flesh of our ancestors" insanity...

> Don't suppose you've ever held one in your hand, have you?

So you ARE arguing that they sliced through
animal hides, muscle and sinew but they were
useless against human flesh...

In some cases we're talking SHARPER than steel.
Flint, for example, can cut better than steel.

But, IN ALL CASES you are arguing that this is a
blade that could cut through an animals hide, it's
muscle & sinew. This is what you're saying. That,
regardless of how sharp it might be it is certainly
sharp enough to cut an animals hide, muscle and
sinew...

...but not sharp enough to cut human flesh.

This is not a smart argument.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Tom McDonald]

Lucky for me, then, that that's not my argument.

[Tom McDonald]

You are insane.

[Claudius Denk]

JTEM:

This is not a smart argument.

Tom McD:

Lucky for me, then, that that's not my argument.

CD:
Hmmm. Does your argument involve entertainment, you know, like something along these lines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti3MkTt5qv4

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Lucky for me, then, that that's not my argument.

Now you're just be retarded, as it most certainly
is (and has been) your argument.

Do yourself a favor and walk away before you
dig yourself any deeper.


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Claudius Denk wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti3MkTt5qv4

Well that's absolute proof for what chainsaws
are used for (no, they are not used to cut
wood, but to entertain audiences), that they
are perfectly saw and juggling is easy.

...'cus is anything of these things aren't
true then Paleoanthropology is not a real
science, and some of the dumbest ideas ever
conceived are propagated by anthropologists.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2013 05:17, RichTravsky wrote:
>
> >>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
> >>>
> >>> For chopping?
> >>
> >> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
> >> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
> >
> > Razor sharp, eh?
> >
> > Then how did they hold them to MAKE THEM?
> >
> > Come back when you can answer that.
>
> They made them with great care, no doubt
> after years of practice, using leather-like
> material to protect their hands and limbs.
> It was, almost certainly, a particular skill
> within a tribe, where one 'craftsman' spent
> much of his time in a quarry, producing
> them.
>
> Using them was another matter. The only

Hmmm. Ok, using leather like material. Of course back, you only
had leather. And there was only one way to get leather. Ignoring
for the moment the process of curing hides etc, how do you think
they got that hide? Do you think that, you know, they had to
cut it free of the animal? You know, with something, you know,
*sharp*?

Moving on - couldn't they use that "leather-like material"
to, you know, USE the finished object?

> thing we can say for certain is that they
> were NOT intended for use for cutting and
> chopping as in the 'swiss-army-knife'
> model.

Despite the wear analysis?

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Dense wrote:
>
> > It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo > Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" >as fences was a revolutionary development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.
>
> It's hard for you to prove this problem even existed.
>
> CD:
> Well, that's pretty much true for anything prehistory.

Dim Jim admits he has not any evidence.

> > > So where is the evidence for these fences?
> >
> > Read upthread.

Where you didn't post any evidence? Try again.

> > > > This explanation fits *all* of the facts:
> > >
> > > > 1) It explains why they produces so many of them
> > >
> > > Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

Waiting.

> > > > 2) It explains why they put so much care into their design
> > >
> > > Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

Waiting.

> > > > 3) It explains why they have an almond shape
> > >
> > > You mean, never used for chopping?
> >
> > Read the notes.
>
> Post it here so everyone can see it ->

Waiting.

> > > > 4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ
> > >
> > > Evidence?
> >
> > Read the note, you idiot.

Post it here so everyone can see it ->

> > > > 5) It explains why they are found encompassing what was garden habitat
> > >
> > > Really? List some fence sites from around the world ->

Waiting.

> > > > 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
> > >
> > > For chopping?

No response.

> > > > 7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
> > >
> > > Chopping would do that too.

No response.

> > > > 8) It explains why they are found miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused, transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen them from each other.)
> > >
> > > What, crossing ALL that open ground carrying heavy rocks? Isn't that
> > > against your "scenario"?
> >
> > No.

Why not?

> > > Or it explains why chopping was a necessary activity.
> >
> > Then you should make an argument to that effect.
>
> The microwear analysis does that for us.
>
> CD:
> Reference?

The one below.

So, uh, Dim Jim, you are ignoring I posted evidence (unlike you) about edge
analysis? You see

hand waving doesn't cut it (pun intended). Microwear analysis gives the
starting point.

List some fence sites from around the world ->

Also, reute the microwear analysis ->

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
>
> > Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists)
> > have use both original and newly-knapped hand axes. In
> > their bare hands. Not particularly hardened bare hands.
>
> CD:
> This kind of reasoning is worthless because it doesn't tell us anything that isn't obvious.
>
> That must be why you have so many double-
> bladed knives (without handles) in your kitchen
> and work-shop.
>
> > Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the
> > researchers.
>
> CD:
> So what. I'm sure you could eat off it also, but that doesn't prove its a plate.

Actually it would since it would fulfill the function of a plate.

> It seems you'd believe anything.
>
> CD:
> For Tom it's all about avoiding having to think.
>
> > OTOH, if you had the capacity to have, say, 18 inches
> > of sharpness, why would you reduce that by, say, 25%
> > if you didn't have to?
>
> Take a look at the knives (and other tools)
> in your kitchen and workshop. You'll see
> that 'adding' a handle to them nearly always
> complicates the design and increases the
> cost of manufacture. There are good
> reasons why they are made that way, and
> why they wouldn't sell if they were made
> without handles.
>
> 'Reducing' the capacity for sharp edges
> is never a problem when the raw material
> is plentiful. Just pick up another stone
> and put a single sharp edge on it.

So, how did they make those dangerous to handle stone tools then?

[RichTravsky]

Tom McDonald wrote:
>
> On 7/30/2013 3:04 PM, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On 7/30/2013 2:29 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:

> >> On 30/07/2013 01:38, Tom McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> 6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For chopping?
> >>>>

> >>>> Why would you put a razor-sharp edge all around
> >>>> a tool that you intended to hold in your hand?
> >>>

> >>> Oddly, people (archaeologists and paleoanthropologists)
> >>> have use both original and newly-knapped hand axes. In
> >>> their bare hands. Not particularly hardened bare hands.
> >>

> >> That must be why you have so many double-
> >> bladed knives (without handles) in your kitchen
> >> and work-shop.
> >>
> >>> Guess what? They work just fine without cutting up the
> >>> researchers.
> >>

> >> It seems you'd believe anything.
> >

> > I've seen a movie of an archaeological experiment where they butchered
> > an elephant using hand axes such as we've been discussing.
> >
> > Guess what? They worked fine, and didn't cut up the experimenters' hands.
> >
> > Also see this video on the butchering of a deer using a replica hand axe:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiY4yefU9qQ
> >
> > I can't open QuickTime movie files, but there are two movies in this
> > format linked to on this page. They are relevant to this discussion:
> >
> > http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-RH-butchery.aspx
> >
> >
> > Or:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ml4h4t7
>
> And:
>
> World Archaeology
>
> Volume 12, Issue 2, 1980
> Special Issue: Early Man: some precise moments in the remote past
> Select Language​▼
> Translator disclaimer
> Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for
> Palaeolithic archaeology
> Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for
> Palaeolithic archaeology
>
> Preview
> Access options
> DOI:10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789
> Peter R. Jonesa
> pages 153-165
>
> Publishing models and article dates explained
> Published online: 15 Jul 2010
>
> "The author gives an interim account of his own experiments in
> butchering carcasses, including goat and zebra, using stone tools which
> he had made himself (replicating certain tool types common in Bed IV of
> Olduvai Gorge). The butchery process was based on the traditional
> Wakamba method of butchering goats, which is also described step by
> step. The author found that for most tasks bifacial tools of substantial
> size, including handaxes, were more efficient than small unretouched or
> retouched flakes."
>
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789#.UfgifI3Cl7s
>
> Or:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/l6aynwb

youtube has a number of hits for making stone tools.

[RichTravsky]

Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> On 01/08/2013 19:54, Tom McDonald wrote:
> > On 7/31/2013 10:36 PM, JTEM wrote:
>
> >> Which explains why you lack the maturity of
> >> admitting the obvious: You can't use a
> >> "Tool" with a blade for a handle to do anything
> >> without risking injury to yourself.
> >
> > Don't suppose you looked at the video of someone doing just that.
> >
> > Or the reports of experimental archaeologists doing just that.
> >
> > Or actually held one and saw for yourself what is and isn't possible.
>
> I did watch the video. One guy using a very large
> 'hand-axe' to dismember a carcase, very very
> slowly, and with much difficulty. He wasn't
> so much 'cutting' as sawing and levering apart
> bones and sinews.

So, how about a hominid who did this for years and needed the
skill to survive, as opposed to someone only recently acquiring it?

> The 'hand-axe' was clearly blunt, and he was
> hopelessly slow. An intelligent early hominid,
> faced with this task, would have used his
> teeth. Or he would have made a fresh tool --

Used his teeth? LOL

[RichTravsky]

Geez. Clod is Dense has to go back to 1984!

[RichTravsky]

Like you ignoring microwear analysis?

[Claudius Denk]

> youtube has a number of hits for making stone tools.

Relevance?

[Claudius Denk]

RT:

So, uh, Dim Jim, you are ignoring I posted evidence (unlike you) about edge
analysis? You see hand waving doesn't cut it (pun intended). Microwear analysis gives the starting point.

CD:
Okay. Microwear analysis. I get that. Now tell us what your point is.

[Tom McDonald]

>> Select Language​▼

>> Translator disclaimer
>> Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for
>> Palaeolithic archaeology
>> Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for
>> Palaeolithic archaeology
>>
>> Preview
>> Access options
>> DOI:10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789
>> Peter R. Jonesa
>> pages 153-165
>>
>> Publishing models and article dates explained
>> Published online: 15 Jul 2010
>>
>> "The author gives an interim account of his own experiments in
>> butchering carcasses, including goat and zebra, using stone tools which
>> he had made himself (replicating certain tool types common in Bed IV of
>> Olduvai Gorge). The butchery process was based on the traditional
>> Wakamba method of butchering goats, which is also described step by
>> step. The author found that for most tasks bifacial tools of substantial
>> size, including handaxes, were more efficient than small unretouched or
>> retouched flakes."
>>
>>
>> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789#.UfgifI3Cl7s
>>
>> Or:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/l6aynwb
>
> youtube has a number of hits for making stone tools.
>

I looked there and found one or two videos of people using hand axes for
butchery. Our friends here found ways to discount them, somehow.

A long time ago, I saw a film of an experiment where experimental arkies
and some local folks butchered an elephant using hand axes. I haven't
been able to find that again--maybe you know of it. It was probably
25-30 years ago, and may have been lost in the mists of time.

What I find fascinating is how the guys here who have never held a hand
axe in their own hands have decided that what I've seen done, and me
having actually held a hand axe, is impossible. And even use-wear
analysis that showed that they were used on several different materials
makes no impression on them.

The only thing I can think of to explain this problem they have is the
idea that the hand axes are somehow exactly the same as steel knives wrt
the difficulty in holding them in use. It seems to me to be the problem
many people have when they use logic based on no experience to create a
scenario, and then use that logic to say something could or could not
have happened.

Logic without experience or experiment often leads folks down wrong
paths. I think that may be what has happened here.

[Tom McDonald]

Hand axes were used for cutting a variety of materials. Seems pretty
relevant to the question of whether using them was a death sentence.

[Claudius Denk]

Thanks Tom, that takes a load off. If these experiments had demonstrated that these "handaxes" were not able to cut into animals skin that would have been a real problem for my hypothesis.

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> Hand axes were used for cutting a variety of materials.

They cut everything, EXCEPT for human flesh
according to you...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM]

Tom McDonald wrote:

> I looked there and found one or two videos of people using hand axes for
> butchery. Our friends here found ways to discount them, somehow.

You say "Hand axes" like there was only one, like
they were all identical. They weren't.

What is of relevance here are only those teardrop
(almond?) shaped objects with a cutting edge all
around. This is not all handaxes nor even most of
them...

> A long time ago, I saw a film of an experiment where experimental arkies
> and some local folks butchered an elephant using hand axes.

I've seen a guy juggling chain saws. This doesn't
mean that every juggler only ever juggles with chain
saws, nor does it mean that juggling with chain saws
is a reasonably safe activity.

You don't have an argument here, you have a non
sequitur. Your conclusion (If I may laughingly
refer to it as such) does not follow your... your...
um... we'll say "Reasoning."


-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com

[Claudius Denk]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 10:32:52 AM UTC-7, JTEM wrote:
> Tom McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hand axes were used for cutting a variety of materials.
>
>
>
> They cut everything, EXCEPT for human flesh
>
> according to you...

It's like talking to a five year old.