I have been using the concept of lithic-rich (L-R) and lithic-poor (L-P) environments in my writings of pre-agriculture peoples since the early 2000s. Yet, it only recently occurred to me that I had never defined the two terms as I understand them and there is sparse literature on the subject, especially the behavior associated with each. So, this paper is a mind dump of my observations and opinions of lithic assemblages from around the world as it relates to these two environments. Also, it is written with the assumption that the sites and assemblages, discussed herein, are pristine. In different words, they have not been disturbed by collectors and/or archaeologists. There are no references at the end and the only citations are to my own web papers. Click here to see the entire presentation. Read the entire webpage.

A Clovis/Pre-Clovis power point presentation written and given by Mike Kunz at the 38th annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association (March 9-12, 2011). It uses projectile point style as a cultural and chronologic diagnostic over an extensive geographical range. Click here to see the entire presentation. Read the entire webpage.

In my webpage Clovis First / Pre-CIovis -- Revisited 2004 I argued that thick-bodied points were Pre-Clovis and that Old Clovis, which are thick-bodied Clovis Points (see The Clovis/Folsom Transition), developed from these thick-bodied points. John Garrett, a friend and colleague, took this idea and created an animated presentation in Power Point demonstrating how thick-bodied points relate to Old Clovis. Additionally, this excellent tool demonstrates how a refurbished thick-bodied point, which has been basally thinned during re-basing, can be misidentified as an Old Clovis point. Click here to download John's presentation (1.2megs). Comments?

Note: Microsoft PowerPoint '97-2003 or newer is required for this presentation, otherwise the animation portion will not work. If the reader doesn't have this software, then a free Powerpoint Reader can be downloaded from this location. Another option is OpenOffice software, which is suppose to have a PowerPoint reader that will run this presentation. However, I have not tested it.

I recently read a 2009 paper titled Cooperative hunting and meat sharing 400-200 kya at Qesem Cave, Israel.¹ For me the title was a little misleading because the paper primarily reported on the cut marks on 38 shattered long bones fragments from the Lower Paleolithic in Qesem Cave. Of great interest to me was the finding the authors called cut-mark “disorder.” Basically, the authors were saying the cut marks from the Lower were not as parallel to each other as the ones on the Middle and Upper Paleolithic bone fragments. The authors write:

“Cut-mark orientations in the Qesem faunas are indeed more chaotic than in later periods. The diverse cut-mark orientation at Qesem suggest that butchering postures, or the ways of holding a body part while cutting away the meat, may have been more varied as well. The cut-mark patterns on the Middle and Upper Paleolithic samples exhibit great regularity, with more consistent orientation of cut marks over small area of bone.”

The authors proposed that perhaps the butchering and/or food sharing behaviors in the Lower were different from those of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic.

So besides both occurring in the Lower Paleolithic, what is the connection between this cut-mark “disorder” and handaxes? To answer this question I point the reader to The Acheulean Handaxe paper I wrote in 2006. In this paper I proposed the handaxe was a large flake core, the by-product of flake extraction, and not a desired end-product. Additionally, because of its width-thickness ratio and large size, I wrote:

“Homo erectus did not select small cores from which to extract flakes (make handaxes). I propose he chose large cores because he did not have the manual dexterity to externally support them and, therefore, he had to rely on the inertial support.”

In different words, the mass of the core resisted the percussion blow and not the hand that was holding the core.

I know that most anthropologist believe the large handaxe is a cultural phenomenon and would see no relationship between it and this cut-mark “disorder.” That said, to me they represent the same thing, the lack of the manual dexterity that we modern humans have. Manual dexterity means not only thumb and fingers, but also eye and brain involvement.

1 – Stiner, Mary C., Ran Barkai, and Avi Gopher. 2009. Cooperative hunting and meat sharing 400—200 kya at Qesem Cave, Israel. PNAS 106(32) 13207-13212.