Archaeologica.org

What surprises me is the flint striking patterns. They are identical. Now I would like to compare our two samples to something Europe or Africa.

Yup. I haven't found an African or European match to date.

Although commonly described as heavy duty butchery tools, many handaxes intuitively appear to be over-engineered for this purpose alone. Much of the debate has focused on the issue of symmetry, which appears to have been intentionally imposed on many handaxes during manufacture. This has been explained as a means to increase the efficiency of the handaxe as a butchery tool (Mitchell 1996, Simao 2001), as a by-product of raw material type and the bifacial knapping method (McPherron 2000, White 1998), as a form of sexual display (Kohn & Mithen 1999), as a marker within the landscape (Gamble 1999, Pope & Roberts 2005), and as an indication of an aesthetic sense in Early and Middle Pleistocene hominins (Edwards 2000, Pelegrin 1993).

This project aims to make a contribution to this debate by establishing the nature of the statistical relationship between, amongst other morphological variables, the degree of symmetry exhibited by a handaxe and its effectiveness as a butchery tool. If a positive relationship exists between symmetry and effectiveness, support can be given to those who argue that handaxes were primarily, or perhaps solely, subsistence tools. If no such relationship exists, then support will be given to those who argue that social, sexual or aesthetic factors may have been important influences on handaxe morphology.

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive ... N=37516917

Another interesting tidbit from the paper Beags pointed out.

Here's a bunch of hand ax images, from the same paper:

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive ... s.cfm?sn=1

If only hand axes were allowed in N.A.

Charlie, there are similarities to be found in the Athena Review article here:

http://www.athenapub.com/13intro-he.htm

At the bottom of the article you will find the image of two Acheulian hand-axes. These two came from St. Acheul, France:



Here is a further article on Acheulean hand-axes:

http://www.athenapub.com/13acheulbox3.htm

Figures 1.f and 1.h are representations of the two above along with other types:



The hand-axes from California and Texas shown earlier appear to be the same style as the Acheulian hand-axe 1.h. which were produced by H. erectus. Interesting, eh?

Just catching up, Charlie and Cognito.
Way to go, guys!
I've got a big case of handaxe envy.

How about those bones,Charile? One seems to be a
shoulder blade that might have been used as a shovel.
And how about that tooth? It looks like that of a ruminant...
horse or cow. Do you have dates on them?

Stan, most of what we find appears to be wider than the Acheulean hand axes from France with a few exceptions. Instead, they apparently bear more resemblance to Acheulean technology from Africa or Asia. Here is a sampling:

Stan, most of what we find appears to be wider than the Acheulean hand axes from France with a few exceptions. Instead, they apparently bear more resemblance to Acheulean technology from Africa or Asia. Here is a sampling:

I agree, Cog. The California and Texas varieties resemble the African
style technology, versus the European. Most are more oval versus "tear-drop" in shape. Africa to South America, and then on up north?

Very nice pieces, Bro. I see your getting good with the new camera. Nice shots!

I'll post a few in the next post.

How about those bones,Charile? One seems to be a
shoulder blade that might have been used as a shovel.
And how about that tooth? It looks like that of a ruminant...
horse or cow. Do you have dates on them?

Hey, Stan.

Yeah, I've noticed alot of the bones were broken into, what appears to be, tools. I think the tooth is a Bison Antiquis', extinct since the late Pleistocene. If our hunch is correct, the bones are beyond 14C resolution, but if it comes down to it, we could always get a minimum date of ca. 50,000 B.P. Hopefully we'll get a good U/Th date.

If only hand axes were allowed in N.A.

Lol! I guess me and Pat don't have to worry about looting charges. They're just geofacts, because hand axes don't exist in N.A.

Here's a few more central Texas hand axes, and a couple of hammer stones:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20448.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20449.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20450.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20451.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Proximal View- 4.5"- Lima-Igl

_______________________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20190.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20191.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20192.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 5"- Lima-Igl

_______________________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20175.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Ventral View- 5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20176.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Dorsal View- 5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20177.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hand Ax- Distal View- 5"- Lima-Igl

_________________________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20455.jpg

Possible PreClovis Cutting Tool- Dorsal View- 8.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20456.jpg

Possible PreClovis Cutting Tool- Ventral View- 8.5"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20457.jpg

Possible PreClovis Cutting Tool- Distal View- 8.5"- Lima-Igl
________________________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20452.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Dorsal View- 12"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20458.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Ventral View- 12"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20454.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Distal View- 12"- Lima-Igl
_____________________________________________________________________



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20458.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Ventral View- 9.75"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20459.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Dorsal View- 9.75"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20460.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Lateral View- 9.75"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20461.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Lateral View- 9.75"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... %20462.jpg

Possible PreClovis Hammer Stone- Distal View- 9.75"- Lima-Igl

I am posting this article here for future reference. Sophisticated Chinese H. erectus tools were recently dated to 803,000 +/- 3,000 years ago:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5458/1622

There are a variety of articles online stating that ancient H. erectus tools do not exist in China and they are ... wrong.

And here's a reference to tool discoveries at the Diring Site, Siberia, dated to 260,000 years ago by Mike Waters at Texas A&M.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5304/1281

Don't tell me those H. erectus spent the winter there without adequate clothing! That area was just as cold back then as it is today. Old ideas die slowly, don't they?

"...Acheulean-like tools in the mid-Pleistocene of South China imply that Mode 2 technical advances were manifested in East Asia contemporaneously with handaxe technology in Africa and western Eurasia. Bose lithic technology is associated with a tektite airfall and forest burning..."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... /5458/1622

Now, that's interesting as heck.

What if mans first steps on this planet were not in Africa?

Lower Paleolithic artifacts have been recovered from a single occupation surface within stratified deposits at Diring Yuriakh, an archaeological site in central Siberia. Thermoluminescence age estimates from eolian sediments indicate that the cultural horizon is greater than 260,000 years old. Diring Yuriakh is an order of magnitude older than documented Paleolithic sites in Siberia and is important for understanding the timing of human expansion into the far north, early adaptations to cold climates, and the peopling of the Americas.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... /5304/1281

Now, that puts a new twist on the Behring Strait model. Only, it wasn't the only way. These guys were dispersing every which way.

What really throws me is how much we underestimated H. erectus in the past. Like I've stated before, I really wonder if HNs and H erectus were just races versus species...and if each of us has a bit of both in our blood? Hss equals a bit of HNs and Erectus?

Cool stuff, Cog!

What if mans first steps on this planet were not in Africa?

The Club will have a shit hemorrhage.

whos calling homo erectus man here
they weren't
i don't think your imaginery global conspiracy club has anything to worry about if thats all you've got as they already have homo erectus in those areas
why is it that you think thats anything new exactly

look
homo sapiens sapiens
homo erectus
the clue is in the spelling

homo sapiens sapiens
homo erectus
the clue is in the spelling

Wow!

Then it must be the case that H. erectus wasn't human.

...The species Homo erectus is thought to have diverged from Homo ergaster populations roughly 1.6 million years ago, and then spread into Asia. It was believed that Homo erectus disappeared as other populations of archaic Homo evolved roughly 400,000 years ago. Evidently, this is not the case. Recent studies into the complicated stratigraphy of the Java Homo erectus sites have revealed some surprising information. Researchers have dated the deposits thought to contain the fossils of H. erectus near the Solo River in Java to only 50,000 years ago. This would mean that at least one population of Homo erectus in Java was a contemporary of modern humans (Homo sapiens).

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html

Hss coexisted with H. erectus and HNs. Did HNs and H. erectus really go extinct, or are these really just races, that are incorporated into Hss genes?

...The original interpretation of Neanderthal anatomy was one of a primitive early human based on a flawed reconstruction of the nearly complete skeleton of an elderly Neanderthal male found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France (second photograph from the top). However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans...
...But another very important factor is the purposeful burial of their dead. Many Neanderthal sites include the remains of individuals who were deliberately placed in graves dug into the earth. Some of these burials show evidence that may indicate that these graves were adorned with offerings (such as flowers). This cultural advance, which represents an awareness and recognition of life and death, may have first been practiced by the Neanderthals...

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm

Homo habilis was originally thought to be the ancestor to all later Homo. In a neat, linear progression, later species emerged resulting in what we call modern humans. This is now known not to be the case.

Also shown are the KNM ER 1813 skull, OH 24, and part of the fragmentary KNM ER 1805 cranium.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

...The origin of modern Homo sapiens is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed. According to the first, the distribution of anatomical traits in modern human populations in different regions was inherited from local populations of Homo erectus and intermediate "archaic" forms. This "Multiregional Hypothesis" states that all modern humans evolved in parallel from earlier populations in Africa, Europe and Asia, with some genetic intermixing among these regions. Support for this comes from the similarity of certain minor anatomical structures in modern human populations and preceding populations of Homo erectus in the same regions....

...Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago...

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

...But this isn't quite the whole story. A more recent evaluation of the entire skeleton by Erik Trinkaus*** has shown that, while the Old Man of La Chapelle did suffer from a degenerative joint disease, the deformation caused by this should not have affected Boule's original reconstruction of the individual’s posture. It appears that Boule's own preconceptions about early humans, and his rejection of the hypothesis that Neanderthals were the ancestors of modern humans, led him to reconstruct a stooped, brutish creature, effectively placing Neanderthals on a side branch of the human evolutionary tree. (Boule even gave his reconstruction an opposable big toe like the great apes, but there was no bone deformity that should or could have lead to this interpretation.)...

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigi ... sconc.html

The Club will have a shit hemorrhage.

A heart attack or two would be better for science.

whos calling homo erectus man here
they weren't
i don't think your imaginery global conspiracy club has anything to worry about if thats all you've got as they already have homo erectus in those areas
why is it that you think thats anything new exactly

Etymology: New Latin Homin-, Homo, from Latin, human being: any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species (as H. erectus and H. habilis)

Marduk, we are dealing with primitive hominids here, ie humans. As for the global conspiracy there is no such thing. However, in North America we do have the "Clovis police" who are a group of close-minded, older generation anthropologists who are set in their ways and very influential in their peer reviews (ie funding). They don't comprise a conspiracy, but they are quite annoying. Fortunately for you British archaeologists are more open-minded and generally lead the way in new archaeological discoveries. Care to swap the two groups? Oh, let's not ... ours would ruin Cambridge for sure!

With regard to North American Acheulean hand axe pictures on this site there really will be no explanation for their existence until they are reliably documented and dated. If H. erectus made it to the Americas, he left no legacy except head lice and a shit-load of tools. If he never made it, then which modern human was using Acheulean technology in the Americas and why?