Fire, feature of tools …
Thank you, dear archaeologists and paleoanthropologist
Fire and features of tools are indicators of a paleolithic period. Let us say that neolithics (except some places like japan or british columbia) are defined by agriculture & livestock keeping, not permanent residence or pottery. Actually, the answer you asked for depends on the words you used:
features are agriculture and livestock keeping.
indices, clues are numerous and particularly the progressive change in the vegetation cover, especially in Europe but alos the disappearance of large fauna.
evidences are elements that cannot be explained other wise. for instance, in Europe, it is the appearance of poaceas in enforested areas, seen through palynology & carpology, while climate did not change so much, indicating large openings of the land cover, that can be explained in a better way with human induced fires, better than large natural fires
cheers!!
The Three-stage System was proposed in 1929 by Astley John Hilary Goodwin, a professional archaeologist, and Clarence van Riet Lowe, a civil engineer and amateur archaeologist, in an article titled "Stone Age Cultures of South Africa" in the journal Annals of the South African Museum.
By then, the dates of the Early Stone Age, or Paleolithic, and Late Stone Age, or Neolithic (neo = new), were fairly solid and were regarded by Goodwin as absolute. He therefore proposed a relative chronology of periods with floating dates, to be called the Earlier and Later Stone Age. The Middle Stone Age would not change its name, but it would not mean Mesolithic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
to Ajay Pratap:
Actually, not really. Yes Neolithic is only the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. But Paleolithics, a period of 300 000 years, is also for 50 000 years the history of Homo sapiens sapiens as hunters gatherers: see the major cave paintings done by not erectus or sapiens neanderthalensis but modern humans: Lascaux, Chauvet, Niaux in France, Altamira in Spain, etc.
to Ajay Pratap:
Actually, not really. Yes Neolithic is only the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. But Paleolithics, a period of 300 000 years, is also for 50 000 years the history of Homo sapiens sapiens as hunters gatherers: see the major cave paintings done by not erectus or sapiens neanderthalensis but modern humans: Lascaux, Chauvet, Niaux in France, Altamira in Spain, etc.
to Ajay Pratap:
Actually, not really. Yes Neolithic is only the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. But Paleolithics, a period of 300 000 years, is also for 50 000 years the history of Homo sapiens sapiens as hunters gatherers: see the major cave paintings done by not erectus or sapiens neanderthalensis but modern humans: Lascaux, Chauvet, Niaux in France, Altamira in Spain, etc.
to Ajay Pratap:
Actually, not really. Yes Neolithic is only the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. But Paleolithics, a period of 300 000 years, is also for 50 000 years the history of Homo sapiens sapiens as hunters gatherers: see the major cave paintings done by not erectus or sapiens neanderthalensis but modern humans: Lascaux, Chauvet, Niaux in France, Altamira in Spain, etc.
to Ajay Pratap:
Actually, not really. Yes Neolithic is only the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. But Paleolithics, a period of 300 000 years, is also for 50 000 years the history of Homo sapiens sapiens as hunters gatherers: see the major cave paintings done by not erectus or sapiens neanderthalensis but modern humans: Lascaux, Chauvet, Niaux in France, Altamira in Spain, etc.
to Ajay Pratap:
Actually, not really. Yes Neolithic is only the history of Homo sapiens sapiens. But Paleolithics, a period of 300 000 years, is also for 50 000 years the history of Homo sapiens sapiens as hunters gatherers: see the major cave paintings done by not erectus or sapiens neanderthalensis but modern humans: Lascaux, Chauvet, Niaux in France, Altamira in Spain, etc.
Originally the division between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic was based on the appearance of polished stone axes (S.J. Lubbock, Pre-historic Times: As Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages, 1865, p. 3) in the Neolithic, in contrast to the exclusive use of chipped stone tools in the Palaeolithic.
Now it is mostly used, like Mehdi already pointed out, to distinguish between mobile hunter/foragers (Pleistocene Palaeolithic and postglacial Mesolithic) and (more or less sedentary) farmers/pastoralists. In Europe the division is quite clear with the importation of a complete ‘Neolithic package’ consisting of sedentary life in fixed houses, pottery, agriculture, domestic animals and yes, the introduction of polished stone tools. In other regions the division might not be so clear with a very gradual adaption of agriculture by still mobile populations, or sedentary people that are exclusively hunters and foragers.
Whereas the division (again in Europe) between the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic is more or less temporal with the Palaeolithic everything up to and including the last Ice Age (Weichsel/Würm) and the Mesolithic being the hunter/foragers in the Holocene, the Neolithic is now defined as the introduction of agriculture originating in the Near East, which happens a lot earlier in south-east Europe (Balkan) than in Scandinavia.
Not yet here on researchgate, but certainly an interesing paper by Julian Thomas about Neolithisation as a more general concept can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/11319163/What_Do_We_Mean_By_Neolithic_Societies_In_Chris_Fowler_Jan_Harding_and_Daniela_Hofmann_eds._2015_The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Neolithic_Europe._Oxford_Oxford_University_Press
Dear Chun Liu & Rengert Elburg
Thank you both. I do totally support and agree with what Rengert said.
May I suggest a book that I really support as well for its clarity and overview?
the first three chapters describe what means agriculture and thereby the history of agriculture appearance and spread (from the different points of origin: middle east, china, mesoamerica, maybe new guinea, india),
it follows for instance the non-scarcity hypothesis of sahlins.
https://books.google.fr/books?id=5GpFT9NQS1gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mazoyer+roudart&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3kPCot5fKAhXCwxQKHXujCO0Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=mazoyer%20roudart&f=false
A history of world agriculture: from the neolithic age to the current crisis
Par Marcel Mazoyer,Laurence Roudart (1997)
cheers
Dear all
Dear Rengert Elburg
Having read all answer, I want to ask some questions.
The Stone Age is divided into three periods, the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic. The purpose of the division is to prove that the intelligence is distinct in respective era, isn’t it?
Knapped stone tools, some double pointed tools are perfect; the edge lines were chapped straight and intact and thin. I do not know that there is any modern human can do it.
Polished stone tools, dear scientists do you pay your attention on the hardness of the stone. I have polished the stone with modern machine. It is difficult.
So who is cleverer?
Dear Mehdi Saqalli
Think you very much for the information you linked。 Notwithstanding I cannot link to the webpage, others can.
Is Agriculture one way to measure the intelligent level?
If in Paleolithic era, the hominids could plant, collect and preserve enough big nuts for his life, is it agriculture?
No, the division in Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic has nothing to do with intelligence, they are used as a helpful division for the use of archaeologists to make it clear what they are speaking about. Like I already wrote, the Palaeolithic is the whole period up to and including the last Ice Age, the Pleistocene, and refers to any toolmaker, be it Homo habilis, erectus, neanderthalensis or sapiens. The Mesolithic, which is basically only valid in Europe, refers to Holocene H. sapiens hunter/foragers and the Neolithic is the succeeding period where agriculture (or better domestication) is practiced. Agriculture has nothing to do whatsoever with intelligence, it’s a development and possibly a choice but it is certainly not intrinsically better than hunting/foraging.
As far as I am aware, there is no knapped stone tool that has not been replicated by modern knappers, be it the complicated fluted Clovis points from Northern America or the beautiful fish-tail daggers from southern Scandinavia. There are numerous websites and a large volume of literature on modern (replicative) flintknapping.
Nobody said polishing stone is not hard work, but it is perfectly possible to grind and polish even the hardest stone like flint or jadeite. I don’t know if you can access youtube, but there are several clips on the polishing of stone axes, my favourite is to be found here:
And as for cleverness: There is no difference in intelligence between Palaeolithic and contemporary Homo sapiens, our technical abilities just developed over the last ten thousand years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSA42nDXEnw
In the evolution of isolated different periods (Paleolithic, Neolithic ...). These periods reflect the specific stages of improvement tools and human.
By definition, the earliest and clearest evidence for the Paleolithic is the appearance of flaked stone tools. The division of the Paleolithic depends on the types of such tools, with bone and antler tools being added later. Another indicator is animal bone with clear signs of butchering (i.e., cut marks made by stone tools).
The definition of the Neolithic has varied over time. As the name suggests, new varieties of stone tools appear. But the current definition requires that there be evidence for either crop production of domestication of animals. Beyond these, the most prominent features depend on where you are, with substantial earthen and stone monuments appearing in some areas. There is usually also evidence for permanent settlement.
Chun Liu, these divisions do have something to do with evolution, namely during the Palaeolithic the evolutionary parameters mainly concerned biological adaptations linked to a gradually expanding and more complex brain. During the Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age, it seems that co-evolutionary factors were becoming important i.e., the way cumulative material culture facilitated niche construction that furthered reproductive success. During the Neolithic we see full blown cultural evolution where innovations are preserved and passed down cumulatively thereby allowing ever greater exploitation of the natural world to the benefit of humans.
Dear Chun Liu,
Absolutely not! A robust quantity of any single type of artifact never equals a permanent settlement. A permanent settlement in archaeological literature is defined as a year-round occupation (now, this may or may not have had features that are visible today). The aggregation of "a lot of" lithics tools ("a lot" is relevant) can be a result of a number of different processes, e.g. lithic workshop, seasonal or annual butchering site, production of other artifact types which require lithics (see shell bead production on Chanel Islands), etc. The entirety of the site (it's strategraphy, and site formation processes), types of lithic tools present, etc. have to be taken into before one evaluate the nature of the site. Generally, lithics cannot be used to understand the nature of occupation (permanent vs season) of the site. For this botanical, and to a lesser degree zooarchaeological data, is far better suited. Hope this helps.
Dear all
A permanent settlement, I think, in respective era is respective meaning. If there are huge number of artifacts, and a lot of relevant tools in a site, Dose it signifie that a lot of hominids were doing same work for a long time there. Can it be an occupation? Just like hunting, fishing…
They already had "ornament". You can follow the meaning and use of "ornament" during the Neolithic, which would lead to insights on tool development, materials, materiality, the development of a symbolic instance, etc. Menhirs come to mind, for example. Christopher Tilley, in his The Materiality of Stone, devotes many pages to inquire into the purpose and meaning of menhirs while studying their ornamental value. Ornament is quite telling, and a lot of new insightful works have been published lately. Great question!
I'm not sure about "ornament" in the paleolithic, and I have been trying to remember where did I read about this, but there are concrete examples of "ornament" in neolithic objects: bone "tools" and "objects" with surface embellishment recorded in James Trilling's The Language of Ornament. As I said, Christopher Tilley's The Materiality of Stone studies surface embellishment on menhirs while discussing their utility of beyond mere "termini" or location posts upon the landscape... Trilling's book is meant for a general reader, but his images are quite good. Tilley is an expert on neolithic stone monuments and has written at length about the subject, as also Richard Bradley's Rock Art and the Prehistory of Atlantic Europe: Signing the Land. Tilley takes more risks than Bradley in interpreting those objects or pondering about their "ornamental" traits.
I must step in with a word on "permanent settlement" with a question: I am doing research in an area where there are permanent habitation sites, where tools were left in place as the group followed their primary food source toward a second set of permanent habitation sites at the other end of the migration route. There would be stone tools there as well. People were more clever than to haul around their stone tools. Two sets of mortars, two sets of many stone tools, left within the circle of stones or the walls of stone, or the cave or rock shelter where a permanent camp was established, and occupied for perhaps half the year. Some entryway paths to individual homes were decorated with boulder effigies or especially beautiful boulders. These were permanent settlements, to which people returned year after year. There would be much cultural evidence left at both ends of these early routes.
Such sites were handed down from generation to generation, and the tools were kept through generations. But few were occupied through all the seasons, other than that some may have stayed through all or most of the change in seasons.
Now then, I ask: would these seasonal habitation sites be considered "permanent settlement" sites? Thank you.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Physiology
- Biosignals
- Biomedical Signal Processing
- Statistical Analysis