like a
reasonable explanation.
But if the balance of evidence favours a recent African origin for modern humans, and if we take those dates from the genetic
and fossil record, suggesting a colonisation of South-East and East Asia by (presumably ingenious and adaptable) modern humans
between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago, then why were they putting so little thought into their tools? Were they really culturally
retarded, or had Movius missed the real technology of Palaeolithic East Asia?
Palaeolithic archaeology is a difficult area just because so little is left behind. As I had seen in Siberia, it was possible
to erect a comfortable home, live in it, then move on without leaving any clue for future archaeologists to uncover. Archaeological
clues in prehistory are rare and precious. As for tools, anything made out of something we would now consider as biodegradable
– wood, other plant materials, animal skin – is by its very nature going to disappear from the archaeological record.
Some archaeologists believe that the riddle of stone tools in East Asia could be explained by something that is both biodegradable
and ubiquitous in the region. I met up with Australian archaeologist Jo Kamminga and we made our way to the small village
of Zhujiatun in southern China, to find out more about this theory.
Jo had armed himself with a selection of typical pebble and flake tools. I had a look at one of them.
‘This is a fairly crude tool,’ I observed.
‘Well, this is what we find in China, and South-East Asia, and in Australia as well. It’s not beautifully shaped, but it’s
incredibly sharp,’ said Jo.
‘But at the end of the Palaeolithic in Europe, people are making really sophisticated stone tools – so what’s going on here?’
‘Well, we’re in a different world here. Firstly, you don’t have the big cobbles of flint that are found in the chalk and limestone
areas of Europe. The chert here comes in smaller nodules, and the material is not so nice to work. You can’t make those fine
points. But the most important thing is that we have a different climate and vegetation here. You have a different range of raw materials available: not only stone, but also bamboo. It’s a very resilient material
and it can be used to make the sorts of things you might be using stone for in other places.’
So perhaps those most basic of pebble tools are just enough to make more sophisticated tools out of plant material, and, perhaps,
out of that most prolific subfamily of grasses in East Asia: bamboo. Bamboo is used so widely in the East today that it is
easy to imagine it would have been seized upon by the first colonisers. But there would be no trace of it left in the ground, only that of the stone tools which had been used to shape it. Although
Movius had concentrated on pebbles from which flakes had been struck, leaving a sharp edge on a heavy tool, perhaps he had
missed the point. Certainly, the flaked pebble could be used as a crude ‘chopper’, but the ‘waste flakes’ also had useful
cutting edges.
‘Why would you go to all that trouble of making a sophisticated stone tool,’ asked Jo, rhetorically, ‘when you can just take
a piece of bamboo, use that as a knife – and throw it away when you’ve finished? Because it’s everywhere.’
He was right. Zhujiatun was surrounded by bamboo forest. From a distance, the hillsides looked feathery: the wind blew through
the bamboo leaves as through a field of corn. Jo and I were going to try a bit of experimental archaeology. We used a large,
very crudely sharpened cobble to bash at the base of a bamboo trunk. The bamboo was thick, about 15cm in diameter, and I
prepared for some hard physical work to fell it. But after just a few minutes of bashing, the bamboo fell. With a little twisting,
it ripped away from its base, and we had the raw material we needed to try making some ‘Palaeolithic’ bamboo tools.
We took our length
reasonable explanation.
But if the balance of evidence favours a recent African origin for modern humans, and if we take those dates from the genetic
and fossil record, suggesting a colonisation of South-East and East Asia by (presumably ingenious and adaptable) modern humans
between 40,000 and 60,000 years ago, then why were they putting so little thought into their tools? Were they really culturally
retarded, or had Movius missed the real technology of Palaeolithic East Asia?
Palaeolithic archaeology is a difficult area just because so little is left behind. As I had seen in Siberia, it was possible
to erect a comfortable home, live in it, then move on without leaving any clue for future archaeologists to uncover. Archaeological
clues in prehistory are rare and precious. As for tools, anything made out of something we would now consider as biodegradable
– wood, other plant materials, animal skin – is by its very nature going to disappear from the archaeological record.
Some archaeologists believe that the riddle of stone tools in East Asia could be explained by something that is both biodegradable
and ubiquitous in the region. I met up with Australian archaeologist Jo Kamminga and we made our way to the small village
of Zhujiatun in southern China, to find out more about this theory.
Jo had armed himself with a selection of typical pebble and flake tools. I had a look at one of them.
‘This is a fairly crude tool,’ I observed.
‘Well, this is what we find in China, and South-East Asia, and in Australia as well. It’s not beautifully shaped, but it’s
incredibly sharp,’ said Jo.
‘But at the end of the Palaeolithic in Europe, people are making really sophisticated stone tools – so what’s going on here?’
‘Well, we’re in a different world here. Firstly, you don’t have the big cobbles of flint that are found in the chalk and limestone
areas of Europe. The chert here comes in smaller nodules, and the material is not so nice to work. You can’t make those fine
points. But the most important thing is that we have a different climate and vegetation here. You have a different range of raw materials available: not only stone, but also bamboo. It’s a very resilient material
and it can be used to make the sorts of things you might be using stone for in other places.’
So perhaps those most basic of pebble tools are just enough to make more sophisticated tools out of plant material, and, perhaps,
out of that most prolific subfamily of grasses in East Asia: bamboo. Bamboo is used so widely in the East today that it is
easy to imagine it would have been seized upon by the first colonisers. But there would be no trace of it left in the ground, only that of the stone tools which had been used to shape it. Although
Movius had concentrated on pebbles from which flakes had been struck, leaving a sharp edge on a heavy tool, perhaps he had
missed the point. Certainly, the flaked pebble could be used as a crude ‘chopper’, but the ‘waste flakes’ also had useful
cutting edges.
‘Why would you go to all that trouble of making a sophisticated stone tool,’ asked Jo, rhetorically, ‘when you can just take
a piece of bamboo, use that as a knife – and throw it away when you’ve finished? Because it’s everywhere.’
He was right. Zhujiatun was surrounded by bamboo forest. From a distance, the hillsides looked feathery: the wind blew through
the bamboo leaves as through a field of corn. Jo and I were going to try a bit of experimental archaeology. We used a large,
very crudely sharpened cobble to bash at the base of a bamboo trunk. The bamboo was thick, about 15cm in diameter, and I
prepared for some hard physical work to fell it. But after just a few minutes of bashing, the bamboo fell. With a little twisting,
it ripped away from its base, and we had the raw material we needed to try making some ‘Palaeolithic’ bamboo tools.
We took our length
Similar Books
The Best of Galaxy’s Edge 2013-2014
Larry Niven, Nancy Kress, Mercedes Lackey, Ken Liu, Brad R. Torgersen, C. L. Moore, Tina Gower
