Hominid Tool-Use:How did our ascendants make and use rock tools?Worlds have been differentiated from other animate beings by their ability to do and utilize tools, characterised by the dramatic phrase of the British anthropologist Kenneth Oakley ‘Man the Toolmaker’ ( Lewin 1993, 310 ) .
While many animate beings use tools, at some phase worlds became mostly dependent on tools for their endurance and this seems alone ( Mann 1972 ) . This essay will analyze how our ascendants made and used rock tools and will analyze each rock tool industry, or manner ( Lewin 1993, 311 ) from the Lower Palaeolithic onwards, in bend: Oldowan, Acheulian, Mousterian and Upper Palaeolithic (See Table 1 ). It will besides see which of our ascendants made these tools. Finally, there will be a short reappraisal of grounds.Table1. The development of rock tools through the Palaeolithic. Beginning: Gowlett 1992b, 356.
How the tools were made
It is likely that the earliest tools were non modified but were used as found: a rock could be used to buffet or throw. Some choice may hold been involved in taking an appropriate specimen, as kids select a good rock for planing across pools or throwing and some Pan troglodytess select cocks and anvils to check unfastened thenar nuts ( Lee 1992 ) . These will probably stay unseeable in the archeological record.The earliest existent rock tool tradition, from 2.
6-1mya, is known as the Oldowan Industry, after Olduvai Gorge where many of the best known illustrations come from ( Lewin 1993, 312 ) . Tools belonging to the Oldowan Industry appear chiefly in Africa, though a similar engineering is found in Asia ( Joneset Al. 468 ) . These tools are characterised as simple and consisted ofnucleussandflakes, which were produced by raping ( Gowlett 1992b, 350 ) .Figure1. Raping an Oldowan tool.
Beginning: Renfrew & A ; Bahn 1996, 304.After happening the natural stuffs, choice was the first portion of production. This involved taking a rock, normally a lava sett, that had no defects ( Lewin 1993, 315 ) . Then the nucleus was struck peeking blows near the border, through a ridge or bulb, bring forthing flakes and a modified nucleus (Figure 1) . Thispercussionmethod was recreated through experimentation by Nicholas Toth, who has used it to do an full suite of Oldowan tools (Figure 2) .
It was frequently thought that the modified nucleuss were the chief tools and the flakes were waste merchandises although Toth’s experimentation has suggested that it may be the other manner around ( Lewin 1993, 313 ) . A following phase may affectretouch, farther alteration of flakes by the contact of fragments from around the border ( Gowlett 1992b, 350-351 ) .
How the tools were used
The grounds from Gona, near Hadar in Ethiopia (Figure 3) and from nearby Bouri suggests that hominids used rock tools to slaughter animate beings for ingestion ( de Heinzelinet Al.
1999 ) . A nexus between rock tools and meat-eating has ever been suggested by the association of rock tools and carnal castanetss. This lead to hypotheses about the sites and the societal administration and ‘cultural’ nature of the hominids utilizing them, including the suggestion that they were home-bases and Centres of ingestion ( Isaac 1989, 306 ) . However, these initial premises have been questioned and it is now recognised that a assortment of procedures can be involved in site-formation ( Isaac 1989, 141-143 ) .
However, close scrutiny of carnal castanetss can uncover unafraid grounds of abattoir and therefore meat-eating. This is because tooth Markss of runing or scavenging animate beings differ from the cut Markss of rock tools ( Potts 1992, 331 ) . The Bouri remains show that meat was removed from castanetss utilizing crisp rock tools (Figure 4) and that castanetss were smashed, utilizing the percussion technique, to entree the marrow (Figure 5) .Figure 4 ( left ) . Tool cuts on a bovid jaw. Beginning: de Heinzelin 1999, 628.
Figure 5 ( above ) . A reconstructed shinbone, modified by the percussion technique. Beginning: de Heinzelin 1999, 628.Other techniques of analysis indicate a wide scope of maps for rock tools early on ( Isaac 1989, 131 ) . The borders of some rock tools produce different sorts of Polish when used in contact with different substances. Analysis of the Koobi Fora tools shows that they were used for cutting meat, cutting or paring wood, and cutting works affair.Experiment and feasibleness surveies have besides shown how efficaciously rock tools can be used and for what intents ( Isaac 1989, 129 ) .
The most various were unretouched flakes, known asdebitage( ‘waste’ ) , which could be used for slicing fells, taking apart and determining wood. Discoids, choppers and nucleus scrapers could be used in unsmooth abattoir and choping wood. Since the flakes appear to be better tools, it may be that the nucleus signifiers were retained as a beginning of farther flakes. These finds and hypotheses contrast with the traditional nomenclature and classification developed in the 1970s and it may be best to see these tools as more opportunistically created with a assortment of possible applications ( Lewin 1993, 313 ) .Who made them?At present, the earliest rock tools are dated to 2.6-5 million old ages ago ( Mya ) and were found at Gona, ( Semawet Al. 2003 ) .
This early day of the month has caused confusion in whether to impute their industry to agayor anaustralopithecine, since the site is normally thought to precede the earliestgayalthough tool-making is normally assigned to them instead thanaustralopithecines( Isaac 1989, 128 ; Lewin 1993, 279 ) . However, it seems thataustralopithecineswere physically capable of bring forthing and utilizing tools, in footings of the construction of their custodies, muscular structure ( Hamricket Al.1998 ) and likely mental abilities ( Wynn 2002, 393 ) , and it may be that bothaustralopithecinesand earlygay( eggay habilis) engaged in this activity ( Isaac 1989, 128 ) . Whatever the connexion between the assortedaustralopithicinesand the latergay, it is likely that assorted hominids co-existed and that these had a assortment of civilizations or ecological differences.
How the tools were madeAcheulian tools ( 1.5-0.15mya ; named after the site of St Acheul, France ) are found across Africa and Eurasia and differed from Oldowan tools. The typical Acheulian tool was the tear-shaped handaxe, based on a modified nucleus instead than the flakes, although there is assortment in the types of tool made at single sites and at some sites ( eg Clacton ) handaxes have non been found ( Gowlett 1992b, 352 ) . Evidence suggests that rocks were carefully selected and could be brought from up to 20km distant, for illustration at Olduvai every bit good as subsequently at Arago in France ( Gowlett 1992a, 344 ) . While they were besides produced by raping and retouching, the tools arebifacialwith flakes removed from opposite sides, ensuing in a more symmetrical visual aspect, although early illustrations may be cruder than later 1s (Figures 6 & A ; 7) .Figure 6. Making an Acheulian manus axe.
Figure 7. Degrees of symmetricalness in Beginning: Renfrew & A ; Bahn 1996, 304. Acheulian bifaces. Beginning: Gowlett 1992a, 343.They appear more planned than Oldowan tools and typically hold a long axis, every bit good as being larger in size ( Lewin 1993, 344 ) .
Acheulian tools were every bit durable as Oldowan tools and were besides marked by a deficiency of assortment and invention.How the tools were usedAcheulian tools may hold been used in similar ways to Oldowan types. Although the tools are frequently termed handaxes, cliverss, it seems likely that they were effectual abattoir tools. Toth has shown that they were effectual for cutting thick fells ( eg elephant tegument ) with the advantage of more weight and a larger cutting surface than Oldowan tools ( Lewin 1993, 348 ) . Keeley has used microwear analysis to demo that handaxe were used in a scope of activities, including abattoir and taking apart, every bit good as woodcutting. It has besides been suggested that they were used as projectile arms, but this is thought less likely.
Cores may besides hold been used as flake resources and at some sites ( eg Isernia, Italy ) these types remain more common than handaxes, therefore there is regional fluctuation ( Gowlett 1992b, 352 ) .Who made them?Acheulian tools required greater cognitive accomplishments to bring forth than Oldowan types ( Lewin 1993, 343 ) .Homo ergaster( 2mya ) is known to precede Acheulian tools by some 0.5my but Acheulian tools can however be attributed to it, taking into history the possibility of a ‘cultural delay’ in the innovation of the Acheulian.
However, others consider thatHomo erectusdeveloped the Acheulian industry rather shortly after its visual aspect ( Wynn 2002, 394 ; Leakey 1994, 93 ) . Another species, perchance an archaicHomosexual sapiensand perchance a precursor of Neandertal mans in Europe, sometimes calledHomo heidelbergensishas been associated with these tools, as at Boxgrove ( Lewin 1993, 401-402 ) . Ambrose ( 2001, 1750 ) states that these were big brained posterities ofHomo erectus.How the tools were madeAfter periods of small fluctuation and invention, Mousterian tools, characterised by much invention and greater diverseness, appeared throughout Europe, Asia and countries of North Africa in the Middle Palaeolithic ( Gowlett 1992b, 353-354 ) .
These smaller tools were made utilizing theLevalloistechnique, which involved careful readying and skilled flaking of a nucleus in order finally to strike off one particular flake (Figure 8) .Figure 8. The Levallois technique. Beginning: Renfrew & A ; Bahn 1996, 304.The Levallois technique possibly originated in Africa for doing handaxes, but the Mousterian is typified by side-scrapers, flakes that were retouched along at least one border (Figure 9) . While flakes were the most common form, points and some handaxes were besides made and there was a greater grade of standardization of types.How the tools were usedBordes classified 60 different Mousterian implements and although alleged side-scrapers were the dominant signifier of rock tool, they were non needfully ever used for grating fells ( Lewin 1993, 368 ; Gowlett 1992b, 354 ) . Microwear analysis and the organic remains indicate significantly that some tools were hafted and that lances, knives and handled scrapers were in usage ( Ambrose 2001, 1751 ) , therefore runing with tools can be credibly suggested.
Alongside abattoir and nutrient readying, wood working is another usage.Figure 9. Mousterian Levallois points and scrapers. Beginning: Gowlett 1992b, 354.Who made them?
Mousterian tools are normally associated withHomosexual sapiens neanderthalensisin western Europe, the Middle East and North Africa but it is likely that some Neandertal mans may hold made other tools. Likewise, early modern worlds at Skhul and Qafzeh in the Middle East may hold made Mousterian tools and the Chatelperronian tools suggest that early modern worlds and Neandertal mans could larn from one another’s techniques ( Lewin 1993, 369 ) .
How the tools were madeUpper Palaeolithic tools made from around 0.04mya are typified bybladeproduction, where long narrow flakes were removed from prepared nucleuss, sometimes by utilizing a cock and clout (Figure 10; Gowlett 1992b, 355 ) .
Other techniques included field striking with a cock rock or the application of force per unit area by pressing down utilizing a pole (Figure 11) . These blades were more standardized than old tools, bespeaking a clear thought of the finished tool and accomplishment in using fabrication techniques while the natural stuffs could come from progressively far off ( Lewin 1993, 431 ) .Figure 10. Making Upper Palaeolithic tools. Beginning: Renfrew & A ; Figure 11.
The force per unit areaBahn 1996, 304.technique. Beginning: Gowlett 1992b, 355.
The finished blade ‘blanks’ could so be fashioned into a assortment of tools distinguishable both stylistically and functionally ( Ambrose 2001, 1752 ) . These developments were mirrored by the increasing usage of other stuffs in the creative activity of complex and luxuriant artifacts.
How the tools were used
Upper Palaeolithic tools had a assortment of utilizations. Pointed burins could be used for scratching and deadening and scrapers once more for covering with fells (Figure 12e, degree Celsius) .Figure 12. Upper Palaeolithic tools.
Beginning: Gowlett 1992b, 354.Some Solutrean foliage blades (Figure 12d )20cm in length and highly thin may hold had ritual or display maps, due to their all right quality, which suggests they could non hold been used for physical work ( Lewin 1993, 432 ) . This sort of scope suggests that progressively specialised undertakings were being carried out and that long distance trade was developing, behavior far more complex than indicated by the Oldowan industry.Who made them?A assortment of grounds allows us to supply the above lineation. Initially much was guessed from the form of the tool and the name they were given. More late, rock tool reproduction, seeking to do reproduction tools has revealed much grounds, including the impression that flakes could sometimes be the tools instead than the nucleuss ( Renfrew & A ; Bahn 1996, 305 ) . Francois Bordes (Figure 13 )and Nicholas Toth are noted in this field.
Figure 13. Francois Bordes raping rock. Beginning: Renfrew & A ; Bahn 1996, 305.
Microwear surveies and microscopic scrutiny can uncover the different sorts of usage that tools have been put to and the different stuffs they have come into contact with. Ethnographic grounds and surveies of non-human Primatess provide analogies and thoughts that can assist in construing grounds. It is now recognised that much about early hominid behaviors need non bode subsequently human complexness ( hindsight, as Dawkins ( 20044-5 ) observes, is unsafe ) but may be well more ape-like ( Stanford 1999 ) . Rather than conceive of one peculiar tendency at any given clip, research workers must be prepared to accept the assortment that is present within modern human and other archpriest civilizations.Ambrose, S.H.
2001. ‘Paleolithic Technology and Human Evolution.’Science291, 1748-1753.
Dawkins, R. 2004.The Ancestor’s Tale. London: Phoenix.De Heinzelin, J. , Clark, J.D.
, White, T. , Hart, W. Renne, P. , WoldeGabriel, G. Beyene, Y.
and Vrba, E. 1999. ‘Environment and Behavior of 2.5 Million-Year-Old Bouri Hominids.’Science284, 625-629.Foley, R.A.
1991. ‘How utile is the civilization construct in early hominid surveies? ’ In Foley, R.A.
( ed. ) . 1991.The Origins of Human Behaviour.
London: Unwin Hyman, 25-38.Gowlett, J.A.J. 1992a. ‘Early human mental abilities.’ In Jones, S.
, Martin, R. and Pilbeam, D. ( eds. ) . 1992.The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 341-345.Gowlett, J.A.J. 1992b. ‘Tools – the Palaeolithic record.
’ In Jones, S. , Martin, R. and Pilbeam, D. ( eds. ) .
1992.The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 350-360.Hamrick, M.W. , Churchill, S.
E. , Schmitt, D. , and Hylander, W.L.
1998. ‘EMG of the human flexor pollicis longus musculus: deductions for the development of hominian tool use.’Journal of Human Evolution34, 123-136.Isaac, G. 1989.The Archaeology of Human Origins.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, S. , Martin, R. and Pilbeam, D. ( eds. ) . 1992.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Leakey, R.
1994.The Origin of Humankind. London: Weidenfeld & A ; Nicolson.Lee, P.
C. 1992. ‘Toolmaking by apes.’ In Jones, S. , Martin, R.
and Pilbeam, D. ( eds. ) . 1992.The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 342.Lewin, R.
1993.Principles of Human Evolution: A Core Textbook.London: Blackwell.Mann, A. 1972. ‘Hominid and Cultural Origins.’Man7 ( 3 ) , 379-386.
Potts, R. 1992. ‘The Hominid Way of Life.
’ In Jones, S. , Martin, R. and Pilbeam, D. ( eds. ) . 1992.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 325-334.Renfrew, C. and Bahan, C. 1996.Archeology: theories, methods and pattern.
London: Thames & A ; Hudson.Semaw, S. , Rogers, M.J. , Quade, J.
, Renne, P.R. , Butler, R.
F, Dominguez-Rodrigo, M. , Stout, D. , Hart, W.
S. , Pickering, T. and Simpson, S.W.
2003. ‘2.6 Million-year-old rock tools and associated castanetss from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia.’Journal of Human Evolution45, 169-177.Stanford, C.
B. 1999.The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Wynn, T. 2002.
‘Archaeology and cognitive evolution.’Behavioural and Brain Sciences25, 389-438.