Re: Homo erectus, city dweller and sailor

On Sep 10, 2:38 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J.LyonLayden wrote:

<snip>

What is the science that flint knapping is based upon?

Physics.

Pardon my intrusion, but isn't "flint knapping" a craft, and an art?

The modern study of the ancient art and craft is a science, however.

And did the
ancients know that they were using that science, or were they just
knapping flint by trial and error?

They knew that if you struck a specific kind of stone with a
specific material in a specific way, you would produce a specific
kind of spall that, when taken together with the same specific
kind of stroke, coupled with several other specific kinds of
strokes with other specific materials, the result would be a
specific kind of tool.

And a pile of very useful debitage.

There was some trial and error when kids learned how to make
tools from toolstone. And most toolstone isn't absolutely
homogeneous (with the possible exception of obsidian--and even
there, variation can occur), so there was a period of trial and
error as folks learned how to work specific toolstones. And
sometimes folks didn't have the best possible (i.e.; most
uniform) toolstone, so they often did the best they could with
what they had--sometimes having to abandon the tool half-made
when it became clear it wouldn't turn out right.

So no, they didn't develop a science of physics. And yes, they
did understand that striking the top edge of a piece of good
toolstone would always result in a conical fracture running
through the stone, and knocking off a flake of the stone from the
underside.

My arguement is that former races of hominid may not have been so
materialistic as we are. They may have concentrated more on developing
things like hypnosis, ayur veda, NLP, acupuncture, etc.

Or song, dance, music, storytelling, art using perishable
materials, social life, loafing, etc.

They were bigger, stronger, and smarter and may not have needed steel
to challenge animals. They may not have needed agriculture.

Therefore we should not say that we are more advanced than them, or
are in any way superior to them.

I haven't ever heard an archaeologist say that we today are
intrinsically superior to our past selves. I *have* heard them
say that we today are more 'technologically' advanced than our
forbears; but that is only because we have built on what went before.

We may have been the survivors only because of chance.

No question. Had the catastrophic challenges been different in
the past, we would not have survived. Archies know this, and
include it in their work.

<snip>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Homo erectus, city dweller and sailor
    ... knapping flint by trial and error? ... And most toolstone isn't absolutely ... they didn't develop a science of physics. ... materials, social life, loafing, etc. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Homo erectus, city dweller and sailor
    ... And most toolstone isn't absolutely ... they didn't develop a science of physics. ... materials, social life, loafing, etc. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Homo erectus, city dweller and sailor
    ... kind of stroke, coupled with several other specific kinds of strokes with other specific materials, the result would be a specific kind of tool. ... And most toolstone isn't absolutely homogeneous, so there was a period of trial and error as folks learned how to work specific toolstones. ... they didn't develop a science of physics. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The curious case, of the mysterious, case.
    ... Case in point, listening to Art Bell and he is talking about a woman, ... Your mind, is manufacturing a reality? ... well they forget Hanuman and the other operators are ... because science doesn't know. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Who is this imitating?
    ... Of course - but while mathematics can be very useful in music theory, ... perceptive musicians of our time and has pointed out pathways for new ... Science started out with people trying to understand without ... It is ART. ...
    (rec.music.theory)
Quantcast