info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why 'hand-axes' are often found in dense layers
70 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Crowley
Aug 23, 2013, 2:49:39 PM8/23/13
to
'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
the size of several football fields. On such sites the
numbers are in the billions
There is no remotely plausible explanation within PA
literature as to why this is so. Consequently, this
extraordinary phenomenon is rarely described (or even
mentioned) in PA texts.
The 'hand-axes' found in such massive conglomerations
are no different from others found across the Old World.
They vary greatly in size and are usually in pristine
condition. They rarely show any signs of re-working.
Each 'hand-axe' represented a significant investment
in time and energy by the hominids who crafted them;
they were fashioned from some local rock and
transported to the site where they are now found.
The hominids would not have made (nor transported)
new 'hand-axes' if they could have readily picked up
the old ones from the ground. So year after year, for
many thousands of years, they were making and
bringing new 'hand-axes' to these sites, unaware that
there were millions (or billions) of them (in pristine
condition) in close proximity. OR they may have
known of the existence of some but been unable to
get at them.
The solution is fairly obvious -- to those who have
read my posts on the topic with any care.
(a) The 'hand-axes' were used to 'poison' carnivores.
They were enclosed in some animal organ, such as
a heart, or possibly just covered with strips of meat,
sewn or tied over the 'hand-axe'. It was important
that each have a sharp edge all around the
circumference, and preferable that they have one
pointed end. As the weapon went through the animal
gut, it tore the sides, leaving the animal seriously
wounded and in agony.
(b) Abdominal injuries in mammals (and probably in
other vertebrates) generate great thirst. The injured
animal would make its way to the nearest body of
water.
(c) It would nearly always finish up in the belly of a
crocodile, being consumed before or after its death.
(d) The 'hand-axe' would then pass through the crocodile,
emerging in its faeces. These would be deposited in the
same place, year after year, generation after generation.
These river courses and lake beds might dry out in the
dry season, or during years of drought. But the hominids
would have stayed away from the area in those times.
Even if they had visited, or if the river had changed its
course, they would have had no reason to think that
underneath the vegetation and the surface of the ground
there were thick beds of 'hand-axes'.
How is this theory to be tested?
1) Check that all such deep beds of 'hand-axes'
are located in fossil rivers and lakes
2) Conduct experiments with live crocodiles.
Can anyone think of any other way in which this
theory can be proved or disproved ?
In the meantime, and given the absence of any
other remotely plausible explanation, I suggest that
the theory must stand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcopesblog.wordpress.com/tag/hand-axe/
" . . . The Acheulians or Early Stone Age humans took great
care in the shaping of stones, especially in the manufacture
of almond-shaped hand-axes. They made billions of these
during their tenure of perhaps a million years on the planet,
and left them scattered over a range of territory from Cape
Point to East Timor. 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.museumsnc.co.za/aboutus/depts/archaeology/kathu.html
" . . . This site is located away from the pan, on the outskirts of the
town. Two excavations, some 300 m apart, were undertaken there
in 1982 and 1990. The superficial unconsolidated aeolian sand unit
contains few if any artefacts, but the lower banded ironstone
(jaspilite) rubble, up to a metre deep, is very largely composed of
stone artefacts. These are attributable to an Acheulean phase,
slightly later than Kathu Pan 4a in typological terms, that is
distinguished by incipient blade production. The site has an
estimated area of 250 000 sq m, and on the basis of the counts for
Excavation 1a, it is calculated that it contains of the order of some
2 billion artefacts. . . "
Abdominal injuries are known to lead to intense
thirst. Dying animals will usually head for a stream
or lake. There they are likely to finish up in the
belly of a crocodile, and the 'hand-axe' will end
up on the bottom of the lake or river-bed.
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/handaxes.html
" . . . 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. . ."
Crocodile faeces are extraordinarily glutinous,
and as they pass the 'hand-axe' through their
anus, it will emerge point-first, and descend
vertically. The crocodile poo will sometimes
allow it to remain in that orientation.
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/handaxes.html
" . . . Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators
find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ . . "
layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
the size of several football fields. On such sites the
numbers are in the billions
There is no remotely plausible explanation within PA
literature as to why this is so. Consequently, this
extraordinary phenomenon is rarely described (or even
mentioned) in PA texts.
The 'hand-axes' found in such massive conglomerations
are no different from others found across the Old World.
They vary greatly in size and are usually in pristine
condition. They rarely show any signs of re-working.
Each 'hand-axe' represented a significant investment
in time and energy by the hominids who crafted them;
they were fashioned from some local rock and
transported to the site where they are now found.
The hominids would not have made (nor transported)
new 'hand-axes' if they could have readily picked up
the old ones from the ground. So year after year, for
many thousands of years, they were making and
bringing new 'hand-axes' to these sites, unaware that
there were millions (or billions) of them (in pristine
condition) in close proximity. OR they may have
known of the existence of some but been unable to
get at them.
The solution is fairly obvious -- to those who have
read my posts on the topic with any care.
(a) The 'hand-axes' were used to 'poison' carnivores.
They were enclosed in some animal organ, such as
a heart, or possibly just covered with strips of meat,
sewn or tied over the 'hand-axe'. It was important
that each have a sharp edge all around the
circumference, and preferable that they have one
pointed end. As the weapon went through the animal
gut, it tore the sides, leaving the animal seriously
wounded and in agony.
(b) Abdominal injuries in mammals (and probably in
other vertebrates) generate great thirst. The injured
animal would make its way to the nearest body of
water.
(c) It would nearly always finish up in the belly of a
crocodile, being consumed before or after its death.
(d) The 'hand-axe' would then pass through the crocodile,
emerging in its faeces. These would be deposited in the
same place, year after year, generation after generation.
These river courses and lake beds might dry out in the
dry season, or during years of drought. But the hominids
would have stayed away from the area in those times.
Even if they had visited, or if the river had changed its
course, they would have had no reason to think that
underneath the vegetation and the surface of the ground
there were thick beds of 'hand-axes'.
How is this theory to be tested?
1) Check that all such deep beds of 'hand-axes'
are located in fossil rivers and lakes
2) Conduct experiments with live crocodiles.
Can anyone think of any other way in which this
theory can be proved or disproved ?
In the meantime, and given the absence of any
other remotely plausible explanation, I suggest that
the theory must stand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcopesblog.wordpress.com/tag/hand-axe/
" . . . The Acheulians or Early Stone Age humans took great
care in the shaping of stones, especially in the manufacture
of almond-shaped hand-axes. They made billions of these
during their tenure of perhaps a million years on the planet,
and left them scattered over a range of territory from Cape
Point to East Timor. 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.museumsnc.co.za/aboutus/depts/archaeology/kathu.html
" . . . This site is located away from the pan, on the outskirts of the
town. Two excavations, some 300 m apart, were undertaken there
in 1982 and 1990. The superficial unconsolidated aeolian sand unit
contains few if any artefacts, but the lower banded ironstone
(jaspilite) rubble, up to a metre deep, is very largely composed of
stone artefacts. These are attributable to an Acheulean phase,
slightly later than Kathu Pan 4a in typological terms, that is
distinguished by incipient blade production. The site has an
estimated area of 250 000 sq m, and on the basis of the counts for
Excavation 1a, it is calculated that it contains of the order of some
2 billion artefacts. . . "
Abdominal injuries are known to lead to intense
thirst. Dying animals will usually head for a stream
or lake. There they are likely to finish up in the
belly of a crocodile, and the 'hand-axe' will end
up on the bottom of the lake or river-bed.
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/handaxes.html
" . . . 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. . ."
Crocodile faeces are extraordinarily glutinous,
and as they pass the 'hand-axe' through their
anus, it will emerge point-first, and descend
vertically. The crocodile poo will sometimes
allow it to remain in that orientation.
http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/handaxes.html
" . . . Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators
find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ . . "
JTEM
Aug 23, 2013, 5:30:53 PM8/23/13
to
Paul Crowley wrote:
> 'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
> layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
> the size of several football fields. On such sites the
> numbers are in the billions
I honestly don't know where this "Billions" keeps
> 'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
> layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
> the size of several football fields. On such sites the
> numbers are in the billions
coming from. Previously the "Support" identified
EVERYTHING right down to the flakes when amassing
it "Billions."
Where are these billions?
> they were fashioned from some local rock and
> transported to the site where they are now found.
that we find examples which are fashioned from local
rock AND we also find examples which had been transported
from elsewhere?
> (a) The 'hand-axes' were used to 'poison' carnivores.
> They were enclosed in some animal organ, such as
> a heart, or possibly just covered with strips of meat,
> sewn or tied over the 'hand-axe'. It was important
> that each have a sharp edge all around the
> circumference, and preferable that they have one
> pointed end. As the weapon went through the animal
> gut, it tore the sides, leaving the animal seriously
> wounded and in agony.
any. And I say that it's unfortunate because it
only serves to highlight the pathetic state of
Paleoanthropology...
Like I said, it's as good an explanation as any, meaning
it has obvious flaws. For one thing many are way too
big and heavy for such a job!
http://images.sciencedaily.com/2009/09/090911134624-large.jpg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911134624.htm
So, your idea is as good as any other, which is to
say that it sucks as bad as the rest.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Paul Crowley
Aug 24, 2013, 4:54:18 AM8/24/13
to
On 23/08/2013 22:30, JTEM wrote:
>> 'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
>> layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
>> the size of several football fields. On such sites the
>> numbers are in the billions
>
> I honestly don't know where this "Billions" keeps
> coming from. Previously the "Support" identified
> EVERYTHING right down to the flakes when amassing
> it "Billions."
"The Support" may still be maintaining that.
>> 'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
>> layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
>> the size of several football fields. On such sites the
>> numbers are in the billions
>
> I honestly don't know where this "Billions" keeps
> coming from. Previously the "Support" identified
> EVERYTHING right down to the flakes when amassing
> it "Billions."
But both of us have seen only photographs of
those deposits. I suggested that the use of the
work 'billions' would be nonsensical if every tiny
flake of detritus was counted, and I am confident
that the number comes from only the actual
tools -- the end artefact.
Of course, if I am wrong, then the rest of my
theory falls. IF the site does have billions of
tiny flakes, then it was a manufacturing one
-- as in a quarry -- and was never at the bottom
of river or lake. Nor was the detritus ever
consumed by carnivores, nor by crocodiles.
But no one who has seen the site thinks that
it was one where 'hand-axes' were made.
> Where are these billions?
See the web sites that I quoted at the end
of my post.
>> they were fashioned from some local rock and
>> transported to the site where they are now found.
>
> This is a contradiction. Do you mean to be claiming
> that we find examples which are fashioned from local
> rock AND we also find examples which had been transported
> from elsewhere?
or lake, where would get the rock for this kind
of purpose? You'd not be able to pick it up
from the immediate grassland. 'Local rock'
comes from quarry sites (usually on hill-sides)
within five or ten miles. Carrying such rock
any distance is a substantial task for any
hominid. Our hominids would not have done
that if they had known of the billions of 'hand-
axes' in the immediate vicinity, and been
able to get at them.
>> (a) The 'hand-axes' were used to 'poison' carnivores.
>> They were enclosed in some animal organ, such as
>> a heart, or possibly just covered with strips of meat,
>> sewn or tied over the 'hand-axe'. It was important
>> that each have a sharp edge all around the
>> circumference, and preferable that they have one
>> pointed end. As the weapon went through the animal
>> gut, it tore the sides, leaving the animal seriously
>> wounded and in agony.
>
> Unfortunately, this is an good an explanation as
> any.
> And I say that it's unfortunate because it
> only serves to highlight the pathetic state of
> Paleoanthropology...
>
> Like I said, it's as good an explanation as any, meaning
> it has obvious flaws. For one thing many are way too
> big and heavy for such a job!
>
> http://images.sciencedaily.com/2009/09/090911134624-large.jpg
to sometimes 'store' a lot in their stomachs. If
one already has (say) ten base-ball sized stones
in there, they could grind the edges of a standard
size 'hand-axe' and allow it to pass through
without damage to the gut. The hominids who
made and transported those massive 'hand-axes'
had probably tried with medium- and large-
sized ones, and failed. The crocodile(s) they
were trying to kill much have been huge and
particularly aggressive.
I don't know that this is the correct answer, but
it is a possible one. They may have been a
solution to some other problem -- but they were
found on the bottom of a lake.
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911134624.htm
>
> So, your idea is as good as any other
knew of any other idea.
Paul.
JTEM
Aug 25, 2013, 2:52:36 AM8/25/13
to
Paul Crowley wrote:
[--snip--]
As I keep pointing out -- with NOBODY
paying the least bit of attention --
hardly any of the finds are of those
iconic teardrop (almond) shaped "Hand
Axes" with the cutting edge all the way
around.
Here. This page includes a rather large
photo of some of your "Billions" from the
location you cite:
http://www.cope.co.za/archaeo/kathu%20townlands.htm
I can see one (towards the top, a little
right of center) that unambiguously matches
the "Hand Axe" that people are talking about
here, with most are barely discernible from a
naturally broken rock to a degree that they
would all be passed over as natural if they
had been found someplace where "tools" aren't
supposed to be...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
[--snip--]
As I keep pointing out -- with NOBODY
paying the least bit of attention --
hardly any of the finds are of those
iconic teardrop (almond) shaped "Hand
Axes" with the cutting edge all the way
around.
Here. This page includes a rather large
photo of some of your "Billions" from the
location you cite:
http://www.cope.co.za/archaeo/kathu%20townlands.htm
I can see one (towards the top, a little
right of center) that unambiguously matches
the "Hand Axe" that people are talking about
here, with most are barely discernible from a
naturally broken rock to a degree that they
would all be passed over as natural if they
had been found someplace where "tools" aren't
supposed to be...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Paul Crowley
Aug 25, 2013, 11:21:32 AM8/25/13
to
On 25/08/2013 07:52, JTEM wrote:
> As I keep pointing out -- with NOBODY
> paying the least bit of attention --
I don't recall any such point -- but, I accept,
> As I keep pointing out -- with NOBODY
> paying the least bit of attention --
that's probably just me.
> hardly any of the finds are of those
> iconic teardrop (almond) shaped "Hand
> Axes" with the cutting edge all the way
> around.
> Here. This page includes a rather large
> photo of some of your "Billions" from the
> location you cite:
>
> http://www.cope.co.za/archaeo/kathu%20townlands.htm
>
> I can see one (towards the top, a little
> right of center) that unambiguously matches
> the "Hand Axe" that people are talking about
> here, with most are barely discernible
discernible on close inspection.
> from a
> naturally broken rock to a degree that they
> would all be passed over as natural if they
> had been found someplace where "tools" aren't
> supposed to be...
the like almost invariably pick out 'classical'
examples. The real world is much messier.
That is an important fact to remember. The
relevant question here is whether or not these
tools could do the job you imagine they were
made for. Given the huge variations in size
and shape, they are most unlikely to be
meant for use as any kind of standard hand
tool -- such as for cutting meat. But could
they kill a carnivore if they were wrapped in
meat, and the animal devoured it?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
Mar 24, 2015, 7:04:27 PM3/24/15
to
On 24/08/2013 09:54 I wrote:
> 'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
> layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
> the size of several football fields. On such sites the
> numbers are in the billions
The 'billions' were questioned by the less well-informed
> 'Hand-axes' are sometimes found densely packed in
> layers a metre or more in depth, spread over an area
> the size of several football fields. On such sites the
> numbers are in the billions
around here -- in spite of my reference to websites and
the photographs on them. See below.
But now there is a paper in PLOS ONE about a roughly
similar site in the Sahara.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116482
" . . . The average density of 75 flakes per m^2 extrapolates to a density
of 7.5 x 10^7 per km^2 . . "
That's 75 million per square km.
" . . . This yields a very unrealistic minimum (allowing for no additional
débitage) of 3 million lithics produced in Africa per year, or 3 x 10^12
over a one million year span . ."
That's 3,000,000,000,000 lithics.
Three thousand billion lithics.
---------------------
Apart from doing the fieldwork, and making these
calculations and estimations. the 'science' in the PLOS
paper is amazingly bad. Of course, that was almost
necessarily always going to be so, given that these guys
do not have the faintest clue as to what these vast
numbers of 'bifacials' were used for. They assume that
they were ordinary tools made and used for everyday
purposes, such as chopping !
No wonder they are confused.
Shame that they cannot admit it.
Paul.
------------------------------------------
Sites quoted before:
http://mcopesblog.wordpress.com/tag/hand-axe/
" . . . The Acheulians or Early Stone Age humans took great
care in the shaping of stones, especially in the manufacture
of almond-shaped hand-axes. They made billions of these
during their tenure of perhaps a million years on the planet,
and left them scattered over a range of territory from Cape
Point to East Timor. 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.museumsnc.co.za/aboutus/depts/archaeology/kathu.html
" . . . This site is located away from the pan, on the outskirts of the
town. Two excavations, some 300 m apart, were undertaken there
in 1982 and 1990. The superficial unconsolidated aeolian sand unit
contains few if any artefacts, but the lower banded ironstone
(jaspilite) rubble, up to a metre deep, is very largely composed of
stone artefacts. These are attributable to an Acheulean phase,
slightly later than Kathu Pan 4a in typological terms, that is
distinguished by incipient blade production. The site has an
estimated area of 250 000 sq m, and on the basis of the counts for
Excavation 1a, it is calculated that it contains of the order of some
2 billion artefacts. . . "
JTEM
Mar 24, 2015, 8:02:22 PM3/24/15
to
Paul Crowley wrote:
> The 'billions' were questioned by the less well-informed
> around here -- in spite of my reference to websites and
> the photographs on them. See below.
You're trolling.
> The 'billions' were questioned by the less well-informed
> around here -- in spite of my reference to websites and
> the photographs on them. See below.
The "billions" is a fantasy.
These are geofacts, NOT artifacts.
Paleoanthropology is *Is* not a real science...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/114389507978
note
Mar 28, 2015, 4:12:12 PM3/28/15
to
Original query: What was the function of the 1st axe? Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas have all been seen using unsharpened stones to bash protein-rich mongongo nuts; Congo pygmies and Southern African KhoiSan bushmen similarly do the same thing. A sharp blade is unnecessary. What was the advantage in knapping a round stone into sharp flakes and an axe-head? My answer, (with which Paul seems to agree and elucidate upon):
http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2007/12/aechulian-hand-axe-or-bifacial-bait.html
I certainly do not dismiss other functions (cutting vegetation, tendon-ligament-bone trimming, weaponry etc.).
http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2007/12/aechulian-hand-axe-or-bifacial-bait.html
I certainly do not dismiss other functions (cutting vegetation, tendon-ligament-bone trimming, weaponry etc.).
JTEM
Mar 30, 2015, 1:26:52 AM3/30/15
to
I am the first to admit that your idea makes
a lot for sense than the crack-pot "Swiss
Army Knife of stone blades" suggestion, but
I do have trouble with it.
For starters, many seem to have been found
in a prone position, apparently left like
that intentionally. Which of course suggests
that they were NOT left inside of bait, or
at least not exclusively.
Of course, crocodiles bask on shore, so such
a "Hand Axe" might pose a threat to one as
it was moving in & out of the water...
Who knows? Maybe the target was people? Maybe
they wanted them to step on them, open a
gash someplace exceptionally vulnerable to
infection?
But why would it have to be /Exclusively/
people? If it worked on crocodiles then why
not people? Why not lions? Why not any
predator?
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
a lot for sense than the crack-pot "Swiss
Army Knife of stone blades" suggestion, but
I do have trouble with it.
For starters, many seem to have been found
in a prone position, apparently left like
that intentionally. Which of course suggests
that they were NOT left inside of bait, or
at least not exclusively.
Of course, crocodiles bask on shore, so such
a "Hand Axe" might pose a threat to one as
it was moving in & out of the water...
Who knows? Maybe the target was people? Maybe
they wanted them to step on them, open a
gash someplace exceptionally vulnerable to
infection?
But why would it have to be /Exclusively/
people? If it worked on crocodiles then why
not people? Why not lions? Why not any
predator?
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com
Paul Crowley
Mar 30, 2015, 6:01:54 PM3/30/15
to
On 28/03/2015 20:12, note wrote:
> Original query: What was the function of the 1st axe?
> Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas have all been seen using
> unsharpened stones to bash protein-rich mongongo nuts; Congo
> pygmies and Southern African KhoiSan bushmen similarly do the
> same thing. A sharp blade is unnecessary. What was the
> advantage in knapping a round stone into sharp flakes and an
> axe-head? My answer, (with which Paul seems to agree and
> elucidate upon):
Indeed, I have taken your idea -- and added a lot to
> Original query: What was the function of the 1st axe?
> Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas have all been seen using
> unsharpened stones to bash protein-rich mongongo nuts; Congo
> pygmies and Southern African KhoiSan bushmen similarly do the
> same thing. A sharp blade is unnecessary. What was the
> advantage in knapping a round stone into sharp flakes and an
> axe-head? My answer, (with which Paul seems to agree and
> elucidate upon):
it myself, and mixed it with several others -- to produce
a unique concoction.
But my deepest and heartfelt thanks.
> http://the-arc-ddeden.blogspot.com/2007/12/aechulian-hand-axe-or-bifacial-bait.html
>
> I certainly do not dismiss other functions (cutting vegetation,
> tendon-ligament-bone trimming, weaponry etc.).
If they put a sharp edge on a rock for such purposes,
they'd have left at least one edge blunt -- so that they
could hold it. They'd have kept such a tool or weapon
in semi-permanent use, re-sharpening it while they
could, discarding it when it ceased to be useful.
But it's the existence of billions (literally) of virtually
'unused' bifaces -- with sharp edges all the way
around -- that screams out for explanation.
Another question that should also scream out for an
answer is "How did ancestral hominids survive in
the presence of numerous and relatively enormous
continental predators?".
Standard paleo-anthropologists have long forgotten
that they should have an answer to that question.
The answer is the one you provide -- the hominids
poisoned the carnivores in the locality before they
brought in their families.
I maintain that hominids initially (for 2-3 million years)
evolved on off-shore islands (something like modern
Zanzibar). Such islands are naturally predator-free.
They would not have moved (nor been able to move)
to the mainland until they had first worked out a method
of dealing with the large carnivores.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
Mar 30, 2015, 6:01:55 PM3/30/15
to
On 30/03/2015 06:26, JTEM wrote:
> I am the first to admit that your idea makes
> a lot for sense than the crack-pot "Swiss
> Army Knife of stone blades" suggestion, but
> I do have trouble with it.
You seem to have missed almost every significant
> I am the first to admit that your idea makes
> a lot for sense than the crack-pot "Swiss
> Army Knife of stone blades" suggestion, but
> I do have trouble with it.
part. Such 'tools' were used to 'poison' carnivores
-- i.e. possible predators on small (and / or on large)
hominids. That's why they have such a great range
in size. But they had one purpose, and they did
that job very well for some three million years. It was
a vital, essential one, and the tool did not change in
that time.
Animals with gut injuries almost invariably seek
water. There they die, or get caught by a crocodile.
Either way they generally finish up in the belly of
one.
> For starters, many seem to have been found
> in a prone position, apparently left like
> that intentionally. Which of course suggests
> that they were NOT left inside of bait, or
> at least not exclusively.
A biface will emerge with the dung from the anus
of the crocodile. sharp-end coming out first. It
will remain in an upright position, with the sharp
end pointing down, unless it is dislodged. But
if sediment is accumulating at the bottom of a
lake, it may remain in that orientation.
> But why would it have to be /Exclusively/
> people? If it worked on crocodiles then why
> not people? Why not lions? Why not any
> predator?
are obliged to gulp down their food at maximum
speed.
Paul.
JTEM
Mar 31, 2015, 12:19:19 AM3/31/15
to
Paul Crowley wrote:
> You seem to have missed almost every significant
> part.
Wrong. There is no significant part to miss.
> You seem to have missed almost every significant
> part.
There is precisely ZERO data on where these have been
found, their numbers and whatever predators are
associated with the environment.
...and what poison, precisely, can be found in
all these habitats?
I agree that the common/popular/official explanation
for these things is rubbish, but you have yet to
build a case beyond wild speculation. Yes your idea
is BETTER than the usual "Swiss Army Knife" idiocy,
but that's faint praise considering just how bad the
"Swiss Army Knife" idea is...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/114760183128
note
May 11, 2015, 11:29:05 AM5/11/15
to
Paul, what do you think of this? Note the link between (weakened) animals dying near waterside (wounded/sick/stressed animals need more water than unstressed healthy ones) and accumulations of stone handaxes near waterside sites. Dave / DDeden
- - -
"In a study published late last year in the journal Nature, Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, and his colleagues found that all human strains of tuberculosis share a common ancestor in Africa about 6,000 years ago. The implication is that this is when and where human beings first picked up TB. It is much later than other scientists had thought, but Dr. Krause's finding only deepened the mystery of the Peruvian mummies, since by then, their ancestors had long since left Africa.
Modern DNA cannot help with this problem, but reading the DNA of the tuberculosis bacteria in the mummies allowed Dr. Krause to suggest an extraordinary explanation. The TB DNA in the mummies most resembles the DNA of TB in seals, which resembles that of TB in goats in Africa, which resembles that of the earliest strains in African people. So perhaps Africans gave tuberculosis to their goats, which gave it to seals, which crossed the Atlantic and gave it to native Americans. "
- - -
DDeden:
TB is easily spread in highly social groups, not in isolated individual contacts, (as far as I know), small bands of (hunting/gathering) people only rarely meeting others would not be good carriers.
Goats stay in small groups in highland pastures usually, domestication probably forced larger groups through larger plains seasonally.
Many seal species gather into large breeding colonies seasonally, many females with few males, some species are less social and pair off.
If Asian bison/buffalo hunters crossed Beringia to America pushing herds into the Bering grasslands and Alaskan coastal floodplains, and if the Asian bison had indemic TB (they are caprine-cousin bovines related to African goats), the TB could have induced a mass extinction in (native) American megafauna such as Giant Sloths, American bison, Mammoths, Gomphotherians, Horses.
This epidemic would then combine with the effects of the Hunting Extinction Model and the Climate Change Model as causes of the mass extinction, but would have weakened/destroyed only social species, leaving animals that rarely gathered into groups unaffected.
Some claim that ancient humans were (savanna dwellers who scavenged large animal carcasses (perhaps more often near waterside sites), rather than using energy to hunt continuously. It would be an interesting spin, if they unintentionally did this symbiotically with TB causing deaths in social animals [a parallel to much later European migrants carrying smallpox/measles etc. resulting in massive die-offs of AmerIndians]. I don't know if this could be traced by analyzing ancient prey remains or coprolites/dung, but I'd expect to be detectable. DDeden
- - -
"In a study published late last year in the journal Nature, Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, and his colleagues found that all human strains of tuberculosis share a common ancestor in Africa about 6,000 years ago. The implication is that this is when and where human beings first picked up TB. It is much later than other scientists had thought, but Dr. Krause's finding only deepened the mystery of the Peruvian mummies, since by then, their ancestors had long since left Africa.
Modern DNA cannot help with this problem, but reading the DNA of the tuberculosis bacteria in the mummies allowed Dr. Krause to suggest an extraordinary explanation. The TB DNA in the mummies most resembles the DNA of TB in seals, which resembles that of TB in goats in Africa, which resembles that of the earliest strains in African people. So perhaps Africans gave tuberculosis to their goats, which gave it to seals, which crossed the Atlantic and gave it to native Americans. "
- - -
DDeden:
TB is easily spread in highly social groups, not in isolated individual contacts, (as far as I know), small bands of (hunting/gathering) people only rarely meeting others would not be good carriers.
Goats stay in small groups in highland pastures usually, domestication probably forced larger groups through larger plains seasonally.
Many seal species gather into large breeding colonies seasonally, many females with few males, some species are less social and pair off.
If Asian bison/buffalo hunters crossed Beringia to America pushing herds into the Bering grasslands and Alaskan coastal floodplains, and if the Asian bison had indemic TB (they are caprine-cousin bovines related to African goats), the TB could have induced a mass extinction in (native) American megafauna such as Giant Sloths, American bison, Mammoths, Gomphotherians, Horses.
This epidemic would then combine with the effects of the Hunting Extinction Model and the Climate Change Model as causes of the mass extinction, but would have weakened/destroyed only social species, leaving animals that rarely gathered into groups unaffected.
Some claim that ancient humans were (savanna dwellers who scavenged large animal carcasses (perhaps more often near waterside sites), rather than using energy to hunt continuously. It would be an interesting spin, if they unintentionally did this symbiotically with TB causing deaths in social animals [a parallel to much later European migrants carrying smallpox/measles etc. resulting in massive die-offs of AmerIndians]. I don't know if this could be traced by analyzing ancient prey remains or coprolites/dung, but I'd expect to be detectable. DDeden
note
May 13, 2015, 10:14:11 AM5/13/15
to
Interesting thoughts on carrion scavenging via dive foraging, from Heather Twist at AAT:
"But crocodiles have a habit of storing say, a freshly killed antelope, under a log underwater. And they aren't terribly good at defending it. Maybe like squirrels and nuts, they forget where they are. I kind of think THAT was where hominids got their first taste of fresh meat. Nicely tenderized aged antelope, no running required!
For the crocs it was a safe place to store the meat, because no other animal could dive down and get it. Makes way more sense than running miles in the heat. Plus the game gets more tender as it is stored. Chimps take a long time to chew antelope, even though they love it. I agree that scavenging leftovers from lions and coyotes is unlikely. They are widely spaced in a hot landscape, and there are loads of creatures fighting over them already (big cats, dogs, vultures). Underwater scavenging though, could give quite a lot of calories for not much work. I've always been impressed too, at how easily ONE male human can fight a crocodile. And a team can just capture it."
"But crocodiles have a habit of storing say, a freshly killed antelope, under a log underwater. And they aren't terribly good at defending it. Maybe like squirrels and nuts, they forget where they are. I kind of think THAT was where hominids got their first taste of fresh meat. Nicely tenderized aged antelope, no running required!
For the crocs it was a safe place to store the meat, because no other animal could dive down and get it. Makes way more sense than running miles in the heat. Plus the game gets more tender as it is stored. Chimps take a long time to chew antelope, even though they love it. I agree that scavenging leftovers from lions and coyotes is unlikely. They are widely spaced in a hot landscape, and there are loads of creatures fighting over them already (big cats, dogs, vultures). Underwater scavenging though, could give quite a lot of calories for not much work. I've always been impressed too, at how easily ONE male human can fight a crocodile. And a team can just capture it."
note
May 14, 2015, 2:14:59 PM5/14/15
to
another tidbit:
DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGO, M., "A study of carnivore competition in riparian and open habitats of modern savannas and its implications for hominid behavioral modeling". Journal of Human Evolution, 40:77-98, 2001.
the researcher found out that lions get less bothered by hyenas and vultures when they drag their hunt to (guess where?) riparian woods, among lakes and rivers. The trees there cover the lion from the vultures, who also are the signal the hyenas and other animals follow (other then the smell). Eating in the open, a lion spends less then a day with it's meal, before the "crowd" watching him gets to big and menacing. But in the riparian woods he gets to stay there for over three days, enjoying his meal with leisure, no one bothering him.
I guess that a group of humans coming by the water, gathering up, then staring, screaming, and branding weapons would certainly have cut short that time, and then have some leftover fine meat for themselves.
DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGO, M., "A study of carnivore competition in riparian and open habitats of modern savannas and its implications for hominid behavioral modeling". Journal of Human Evolution, 40:77-98, 2001.
the researcher found out that lions get less bothered by hyenas and vultures when they drag their hunt to (guess where?) riparian woods, among lakes and rivers. The trees there cover the lion from the vultures, who also are the signal the hyenas and other animals follow (other then the smell). Eating in the open, a lion spends less then a day with it's meal, before the "crowd" watching him gets to big and menacing. But in the riparian woods he gets to stay there for over three days, enjoying his meal with leisure, no one bothering him.
I guess that a group of humans coming by the water, gathering up, then staring, screaming, and branding weapons would certainly have cut short that time, and then have some leftover fine meat for themselves.
0 new messages