Posts
I just want to mention that I have discovered today a couple of probably important elements I was unaware of earlier in regard to the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe.
The Lincombian culture
The first one is dealt with in detail by Millán Mozota at his blog (in Spanish but all reference papers are in English) and is the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) culture. This techno-culture shares the general evolution towards characteristic Upper Paleolithic blade technology but is however quite different from others we know in the typological aspect, styling a distinctive double-faced retouch.
This culture is most probably the work of Homo neanderthalensis, as it was found along with Neanderthal remains in the cave of Spy in Belgium (however in flagrant case of bad archaeology where the archaeological context was totally destroyed and not documented). These remains have been recently carbon-dated and display a date of c. 36,000 years BP (very roughly c. 45,000 years ago after calibration), suggesting that both are related.
Wooden spear from Slovenia
The other item I stumbled upon today is the existence of a unique spear point made of yew wood. This point was discovered in 2009 at the Ljubljana Marshes near Sinja Gorica in Slovenia and is said to have Szeletian affinities (source: Ljubljana Municipality).
You tell me if this is not fascinating. There has been for long speculation on the existence of such wooden tools and weapons (for instance in SE Asia where bamboo might have been a material of choice) but so far no direct evidence.
The spear is believed to date to 38-45,000 years ago, though I am not aware that it has been dated by any method.
15 comments:
Wooden spears at this late date? Did they work better that spears with stone points?
I'm not sure to understand the meaning of the question but there is always another way to do things.
Just for speculating: it's very possible that a yew spear point could be better than a flintstone one (at their skill level) or at least better than a chert or quartz one, or at least similarly good and easier to work in any case.
Yew is a favorite material for wood carvers precisely because it is very tough, though now the poisonous slow-growth bush it's strictly protected here. It's not like the were using pine, you know.
The question of materials must have been an important one for Paleolithic peoples: surely they took their time to find the best possible ones and to produce the best possible tools out of them. After all the difference between a good and a bad rope (or spear or canoe or even clothes in cold weather) may be the difference between life and death.
The peculiar characteristics of yew wood (tough and flexible at the same time) made it a favorite for long bows causing widespread destruction of the bush in the Middle Ages.
Btw, I'm wondering if maybe the use of yew wood also implies its use as poison. The wood itself remains poisonous after cutting (though we used it for spoons and cups traditionally, so it's semi-safe) and it's particularly dangerous for horses, while deer instead seem immune. However they probably had other choices when poisoning their spears, if they did at all.
"Did they work better that spears with stone points?"
Probably easier and faster to make than hafted spears, especially during this early period of the perfection of hafting techniques.
Hafting should not have been the issue, here it is discussed how Neanderthals were quite masterful at that.
Oops, the link is this one: http://www.iabrno.cz/agalerie/middle.htm
Some of the statements in that link are controversial. For example I don't think many would claim Neanderthals used bow and arrow. In fact its invention is considered to be quite late. I also understand that evidence for hafting by Neanderthals is not widely accepted. And even if they did use the technology merely sharpening a wooden spear, and hardening it in a fire, would be far easier than any hafting technique available, and possibly nearly as effective.
I'm not any expert in this matter, so I'm just googling around:
"Before their extinction about 24,000 years ago, the Neanderthals developed the extensive use of hafted stone tools" (...) "Hafted tools thought to have been created by Homo Floresiensis up to 90,000 years ago have been discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores." (source)
"The stone tools produced by Neanderthals are described as the Mousterian Industry or the Middle Palaeolithic. These lithic assemblages are characterized by Mode 3 technology, or the careful preparation of core surfaces so that large, symmetrical flakes could be produced. These flakes were sometimes shaped into specific forms for cutting, scraping, and other actions on meat, hide, and vegetal matter. Some of these flakes were also hafted onto spear tips for hunting". (source)
"Tools With Handles Even More AncientScience News are reporting on a paper slated to appear in the December issue of Antiquity, 'Middle Palaeolithic bitumen use at Umm el Tlel around 70,000 BP', for which this is the abstract...The authors identify natural bitumen on stone implements dating to 70,000 BP. It is proposed that this represents residue from hafting, taking the practice back a further 30,000 years from the date previously noted and published in Nature" (source - it's originally from Remote Central, so I may ask Tim when he comes back from holidays)
"Before their extinction about 24,000 years ago, the Neanderthals developed the extensive use of hafted stone tools" (source)
"A scraper and a Levallois flake were discovered in the Umm el Tlel site in Syria and were submitted to an organic geochemical study to examine the black substance on their surface. The shape of the black substance indicates these were remnants of a hafting material used by middle Palaeolithic men to stick handles on their tools. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis confirmed the black substance was bitumen" (source)
However you may be right about arrows. I can't say because both Pygmies and Bushmen traditionally use arrow and bow with poisons, unlike other groups which prefer other techniques such as blowguns or atlatls. It's a most difficult to demonstrate technique because the arrows and darts are not likely to include any stone but it might be a Sapiens-specific technology.
I correct myself: there is evidence of arrow points since Blombos cave (MSA, South Africa), see Mundo Neandertal (in Spanish but with references).
"there is evidence of arrow points since Blombos cave (MSA, South Africa)"
But your link regarding use of hafting on Flores (which I could not find, it is on the bow and arrow) says:
"The bow seems to have been invented in the late Paleolithic or early Mesolithic periods. The oldest indication for its use in Europe comes from the Stellmoor in the Ahrensburg valley north of Hamburg, Germany and date from the late Paleolithic, about 10,000–9,000 BC. The arrows were made of pine and consisted of a main shaft and a six to eight inch long foreshaft with a flint point. There are no definite earlier bows; previous pointed shafts are known, but may have been launched by atlatls rather than bows".
"Hafted tools thought to have been created by Homo Floresiensis up to 90,000 years ago have been discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores".
I'd be extremely surprised if a 90,000 years date for hafting is ever proved, especially on Flores. I'd be prepared to accept a date on Flores something like 15,000 years, but in that case they would have learned the technique of later arrivals.
"Before their extinction about 24,000 years ago, the Neanderthals developed the extensive use of hafted stone tools"
But how long before their extinction?
"Middle Palaeolithic bitumen use at Umm el Tlel around 70,000 BP"
I remember seeing that, but it could have been quite some time before the technique reached the Neanderthals of Europe. On the other hand Middle Eastern Neanderthals may have rapidly adopted the technique. I notice you believe that technological change is often not connected to any element of genetic change (reference the Levallois) but the fact that modern humans were delayed in their entry into Europe may have delayed the introduction of hafting into the European Neanderthals.
"But your link regarding use of hafting on Flores (which I could not find, it is on the bow and arrow)"...
It's the correct link. I could quickly find the paragraph again by using text search function (ctrl-F) and typing "flores".
"There are no definite earlier bows; previous pointed shafts are known, but may have been launched by atlatls rather than bows".
That's what you want to believe, as always. The arrow points at Blombos seem to be virtually identical to the ones used by Bushmen today.
We know of Paleolithic atlatls only because some were made of antler or bone in the Magdalenian but obviously a lot more had to be made of wood and we know nothing about these either. Wood is almost impossible to get preserved for so long.
I recall that there is a cave (in Ardeche?) with a Solutrean drawing of a person using bow and arrow. I'll check later if I can find a link.
"I'd be prepared to accept a date on Flores something like 15,000 years"...
What you are "prepared to accept" or not is not my concern. My concern is factual information. I am prepared to accept that humans could make in the past pretty much what they can do today in the same socio-economical contexts. Obviously each invention had to have their first time but with archaeology at best we can only get the latest possible time, not the first actual time.
"But how long before their extinction?"
You reply to yourself:
"Middle Palaeolithic bitumen use at Umm el Tlel around 70,000 BP".
"I remember seeing that, but it could have been quite some time before the technique reached the Neanderthals of Europe".
Well, that's a possibility but it's in the realm of defensive speculation rather than realistic thought, IMO.
"That's what you want to believe, as always".
You don't believe that's what the link says? Look again. And I've consistently noticed that you instantly dismiss any evidence
I've provided that conflicts with your own pre-existing beliefs. In fact you recently demonstrated that you 'believe' you know more about SE Asian prehistory than does Peter Bellwood. And you 'believe' that Paleolithic humans could move as readily through dense jungle and lowland tropical swamp forest as they could through semi-open woodland and grassland. And you showed that you 'believe' there were no advances in technology over the whole Upper Paleolithic.
"I am prepared to accept that humans could make in the past pretty much what they can do today in the same socio-economical contexts".
Really? Machine guns?
It's obviously a complete waste of time providing you with any references at all.
"You don't believe that's what the link says?"
It says that they may have been used with atlatls instead of bow. 'May' is a verb that indicates possibility not certainty, right?
"And you 'believe' that Paleolithic humans could move as readily through dense jungle and lowland tropical swamp forest as they could through semi-open woodland and grassland".
I think that, considering the long time frames, the difficulty for walking is not really that important, specially if there's no other route. People only migrated long distances through many generations. Any such movements took centuries, possibly many millennia, so speed is not really any issue as long as it can be done and people don't starve or freeze to death in the process.
I also think that, using a boat or raft, moving along the coast, including estuaries and mangrove swamps may perfectly be faster than mere walking through savanna.
"And you showed that you 'believe' there were no advances in technology over the whole Upper Paleolithic".
That's not true. But I'm not certain about most of them. I do understand that Magdalenian is technologically more advanced that its Aurignacian ancestor but it's mostly a matter of refinement and we know of no or very few specific key advances in all the period.
One of the key advances of UP was without doubt the definitive dip into laminar stone tech but it happened at the beginning, the same that happened with the needle and the use of bone. Other important advance is the development of microliths in India c. 38,000 BP but these only became a common sight in West Eurasia at the Epipaleolithic. Similarly blade tech only arrived to East Asia, as far as we know, c. 20,000 BP.
What does this say? It's not clear. Maybe not much but slow cultural diffusion.
"Really? Machine guns?"
In the same socioeconomical contexts! Industrialization was not a Paleolithic socioeconomical context.
I have found nearly 100 items of wood in NE Florida in a swamp area. Most were buried from 3 inches to 3 feet. Some were from a creek bed near there. I have tools, spears, projectile points(?), animal carvings and quite a few pointed objects. I have several poles. A few of the carvings MOL rest upon points on the poles, and I think I have a comb> I found 1 stone arrowhead which I gave to my grandson. Can you guide and/or advise me? mgrmerlin@gmail, thanks, Bill Porter..
I do not think I can help you, sorry. You should surely contact archaeologists from your local universities and/or museums.
Undoubtedly here in the US, most are interested in gold or treasures of sort, I have contacted numerous "professionals" in the university system only to be told it's only driftwood or nature made it, only a few have even became interested but only until they would discover I wasn't going to give it to them. On google, the "oldest" wooden tool is a pointed spearhead(?)looking item, I have a set of these. Well, anyways, thank you for responding...
Post a Comment