This new article by Hardy et al. (in press 2008) focuses on the functional interpretation of stone tools from three major sites located in the Swabian Jura region of Germany (Vogelherd, Geißenklösterle, Hohle Fels). They conducted the analysis of a sample of 109 stone tools (39 distinct tool types) from early Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian) contexts using both use-wear analysis and residue analysis. Beyond identifying the function of these tools, the authors investigated several claims about tool diversification, specialization and standardization during the earliest phases of the Upper Paleolithic. The most typical claim is that we should expect to observe both higher standardization (morphology of the tools) and higher richness (more discrete tool types) of Upper Paleolithic assemblages when compared to Middle Paleolithic ones. As it is often the case when dealing with the emergence of modern behavior, such claims are used to support (or rather justify) assumptions regarding the cognitive capacities of our species when compared with another fossil hominin species (Neandertals in particular).
The authors used specific techniques to identify and extract residues from these 109 tools with typical challenges associated with use-wear and residue analyses (overlapping use wears on the same tool or edge, modern contamination…). Hence, 64 tools (58.7%) had “identifiable residues on their surfaces”. The distribution of the different residues/wears is both interesting and disappointing at the same time. Disappointing because, many of the tools have been used against many different types of materials and in many different types of activities. Results that could eventually explain the diminishing interest for use-wear analysis after a first enthusiastic push at the end of the 20th century. Yet, these results are still very telling.
First, this tends to support the authors’ point that Upper Paleolithic stone tools were not apparently very specialized and more specialized than Middle Paleolithic stone tools. Also, traces/wears associated with soft plants, wood and/or starch grains processing tends to demonstrate again the role played by materials for which we have no direct evidence. Other conclusions target specific questions such as the function of burins (here used as tools –but not as engravers- and as bladelet cores), the little number of tools displaying traces/wears typical of hafting and the habitual use of small flakes for many different tasks.
Going back to the broader question regarding artifact diversity during the early Upper Paleolithic, the authors conclude:
“While there is little dispute over the increased artifact diversity in the Upper Paleolithic, the burin example above illustrates that our understanding of the meaning of artifact diversity is limited.” (Hardy et al 2008:15) and “In this debate, however, we may be putting the cart before the horse in terms of our ability to reconstruct past behavior. It is difficult to use changes in stone tools, for example, as evidence of behavioral “modernity” when we do not have a complete understanding of what these changes mean.” (ibid)
REFERENCES
Hardy, B. L., M. Bolus and N. J. Conard
2008 Hammer or crescent wrench? Stone-tool form and function in the Aurignacian of southwest Germany. Journal of Human Evolution:1-15.
The authors used specific techniques to identify and extract residues from these 109 tools with typical challenges associated with use-wear and residue analyses (overlapping use wears on the same tool or edge, modern contamination…). Hence, 64 tools (58.7%) had “identifiable residues on their surfaces”. The distribution of the different residues/wears is both interesting and disappointing at the same time. Disappointing because, many of the tools have been used against many different types of materials and in many different types of activities. Results that could eventually explain the diminishing interest for use-wear analysis after a first enthusiastic push at the end of the 20th century. Yet, these results are still very telling.
First, this tends to support the authors’ point that Upper Paleolithic stone tools were not apparently very specialized and more specialized than Middle Paleolithic stone tools. Also, traces/wears associated with soft plants, wood and/or starch grains processing tends to demonstrate again the role played by materials for which we have no direct evidence. Other conclusions target specific questions such as the function of burins (here used as tools –but not as engravers- and as bladelet cores), the little number of tools displaying traces/wears typical of hafting and the habitual use of small flakes for many different tasks.
Going back to the broader question regarding artifact diversity during the early Upper Paleolithic, the authors conclude:
“While there is little dispute over the increased artifact diversity in the Upper Paleolithic, the burin example above illustrates that our understanding of the meaning of artifact diversity is limited.” (Hardy et al 2008:15) and “In this debate, however, we may be putting the cart before the horse in terms of our ability to reconstruct past behavior. It is difficult to use changes in stone tools, for example, as evidence of behavioral “modernity” when we do not have a complete understanding of what these changes mean.” (ibid)
REFERENCES
Hardy, B. L., M. Bolus and N. J. Conard
2008 Hammer or crescent wrench? Stone-tool form and function in the Aurignacian of southwest Germany. Journal of Human Evolution:1-15.
0 comments:
Post a Comment