首页> 外文OA文献 >Domestic tools, hafting, and the evolution of technology: The Upper Palaeolithic of Hohle Fels as a case study
【2h】

Domestic tools, hafting, and the evolution of technology: The Upper Palaeolithic of Hohle Fels as a case study

机译:家用工具,柄和技术的演进:以霍勒费尔斯上古旧石器为例

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Innovations relevant to human evolution often involve subsistence technology, which can affect the success of individual groups, and Homo sapiens in general. However, Palaeolithic technologies include more than just hunting tools, and a proper understanding of hunter-gatherer ways of living requires knowledge of the organisation of diverse tasks and activities, including the manufacture and maintenance of tools and other equipment. One central aspect of technological evolution is the development of tool hafting [1, 2], which is not only restricted to hunting and gathering implements, but also affects so-called domestic tool categories.We present the results of an on-going project that focuses on hafting and use of stone tools in the Upper Palaeolithic through detailed functional analysis of selected assemblages from European key sites (Hohle Fels, Abri Pataud, Maisières-Canal), which have yielded rich lithic and organic assemblages from secure chronological contexts. Here the focus is on classic Upper Palaeolithic tool categories, such as endscrapers and burins, from the Gravettian and Magdalenian levels of the cave site Hohle Fels (Germany) [3, 4]. We suggest that domestic tools can offer a valuable source material, since for most of them, hafting is not a necessity as it is for spear and arrow tips. An increase in hafting implies an increase in time investment, which has implications for task organisation and specialisation.The Hohle Fels assemblage offers an interesting case study for temporal changes (or continuity) in the frequency and techniques of tool hafting. The projectile technology shows a clear shift from the Gravettian to the Magadalenian, marked by the introduction of a microlithic technology (backed bladelets). For other tool categories, the changes seem more subtle. Our goal is to characterise the tools used in manufacture and maintenance tasks, and to evaluate whether the Gravettian to Magdalenian transition witnesses changes in tool design and use that go beyond hunting equipment. The observed differences between tool classes and time periods are explained with a reference to details of tool use, such as the rate of edge wear development and stone tool exhaustion, as well as shifts in treatment of organic raw materials. The results suggest that domestic tools can aid in understanding long-term technological evolution, and create a baseline against which we can (re)assess the role of shifts observed in technologies that are more susceptible to morphological change, such as projectiles.References: [1] Rots, V., 2013. Insights into early Middle Palaeolithic tool use and hafting in Western Europe: The functional analysis of level IIa of the early Middle Palaeolithic site of Biache-Saint-Vaast (France). J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 497–506. [2] Barham, L., 2013. From Hand to Handle: The First Industrial Revolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford. [3] Conard, N. J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new challenges. J. Hum. Evol. 44, 331–371. [4] Taller, A., Bolus, M., Conard, N. J., 2014. The Magdalenian of Hohle Fels Cave and the Resettlement of the Swabian Jura after the LGM. In: Otte, M., Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique: Actes du Colloque international de la commission 8 (Paléolithique supérieur) de l'UISPP, Université de Liège, 28–31 mai 2012. Centre National de Recherche Archéologique, Luxembourg.
机译:与人类进化有关的创新通常涉及生存技术,这可能会影响单个群体以及整个智人的成功。但是,旧石器时代的技术不仅包括狩猎工具,而且对狩猎者和采集者生活方式的正确理解需要了解各种任务和活动的组织知识,包括工具和其他设备的制造和维护。技术发展的一个中心方面是工具装柄的发展[1、2],它不仅限于狩猎和收集工具,而且还影响所谓的家用工具类别。我们介绍了正在进行的项目的结果,通过对欧洲关键地点(Hohle Fels,Abri Pataud,Maisières-Canal)精选的组件进行详细的功能分析,重点研究了旧石器时代上的石材工具的吊装和使用,这些地点从安全的时间顺序环境中获得了丰富的石器和有机组件。这里的重点是来自洞穴遗址Hohle Fels(德国)的Gravettian和Magdalenian层的经典上古石器时代的工具类别,例如底切和埋孔钻[3,4]。我们建议家用工具可以提供有价值的原始资料,因为对于大多数工具来说,柄和矛和箭尖并不是必须的。柄的增加意味着时间投资的增加,这对任务组织和专业化具有影响。Hohle Fels组合为工具柄的频率和技术的时间变化(或连续性)提供了有趣的案例研究。弹丸技术显示出从Gravettian到Magadalenian的明显转变,其特征是引入了微石技术(后刃)。对于其他工具类别,更改似乎更加微妙。我们的目标是表征制造和维护任务中使用的工具,并评估从Gravettian到Magdalenian的过渡见证人是否在工具设计和使用方面进行了超越狩猎设备的变更。参照工具的使用细节解释了所观察到的工具类别和时间段之间的差异,例如边缘磨损的发生率和石器工具的耗竭率以及有机原料处理的变化。结果表明,家用工具可以帮助理解长期的技术发展,并为我们可以(重新)评估在更易受形态变化影响的技术(例如弹丸)中观察到的变化的作用提供一个基准。 1] Rots,V.,2013年。《对中欧旧石器时代早期工具的使用和柄的认识:Biache-Saint-Vaast(法国)中古石器时代早期站点IIa级的功能分析》。 J.考古科学40,497–506。 [2] Barham,L.,2013年。《从头到尾:第一次工业革命》。牛津大学出版社,牛津。 [3] Conard,N。J.,Bolus,M.,2003年。放射性碳与现代人类的出现和欧洲文化创新的时机:新成果和新挑战。 J.哼进化44,331–371。 [4] Taller,A.,Bolus,M.,Conard,N. J.,2014年。LGM后Hohle Fels洞穴的马格达利安和斯瓦比亚侏罗山的重新安置。在:Otte,M.,Le Brun-Ricalens,F.(编),欧洲模式和欧洲安置方式:UISPP国际大学委员会8(Paléolithiquesupérieur),列日大学, 2012年5月28日至31日。国家历史中心,卢森堡。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号