METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
History Timelines
|
History Timelines |
|
|
Stone Age Timelines
Human Prehistory and the Stone Age… a timeline critique(2nd edition - May 2005) by A.O. Kime In the 1820’s, in order to address the prehistory of mankind more clearly, it was thought necessary to divide it into time periods, thus a ‘three-age’ system of the (1) Stone Age, (2) Bronze Age and (3) Iron Age was adopted. While this system is still more-or-less in common use today, refinements were inevitable and the Stone Age, so immensely long, was later subdivided into three major periods as follows: Paleolithic (c 2,000,000 – c 10,000 B.C.) (Old Stone Age)The Paleolithic time period is by far the longest, beginning some (circa) two
million years ago to coincide with the first evidence of toolmaking and ending
around 10,000 B.C. to coincide with the end of the last ice age (Pleistocene
epoch). Later, as notable advancements in stone toolmaking capabilities were
recognized and identified pertaining to the Paleolithic, it was also subdivided
thusly: Mesolithic (c 10,000 – c 5,500 B.C.) (Middle Stone Age)This relatively short Mesolithic time period, sometimes called the Epipaleolithic Era in areas where glaciers did not exist, was set-up to cover the period from the last ice age until the introduction of farming considered to have occurred sometime around 5,500 B.C. However, that particular date just represents widespread farming; it apparently was already taking place a few (or several) thousand years earlier in the Middle East. Farming began at different times between the various cultures generally and notably was more pronounced between continents. From a broad point-of-view, that is, if uniformly applied worldwide, the Mesolithic could overlap the next one (Neolithic) by a few (or several) thousand years. In other words, in one part of the world it could still be Mesolithic (no farming) yet having already advanced to Neolithic (farming) in another. Because of this, its application became regionalized. Neolithic (c 5,500 – c 2,500 B.C.) (New Stone Age)This very short Neolithic time period, the last part of the Stone Age, was set-up to cover the period from the onset of farming and ending when metal tools came into widespread use. Again, since ‘widespread’ would be a judgment call... so as to when the next age (Bronze Age) should begin would be a matter of opinion. Metal tools in common use (copper) could have begun as early as 6,000 B.C. within some regions of Europe, Asia and North Africa, effectively eliminating the need to refer to any Neolithic time period at these locations. It could apply to less advanced regions however, like the Americas and the rest of Africa. The Neolithic therefore became a regional matter also. Stone Age observationsIt seems archeologists devised and adopted these Stone Age time periods prematurely (1820s), without knowing enough, as if anticipating history, because, as it turned out, the Neolithic period wasn’t applicable to the more advanced societies. And some evidence suggests the Middle East (highly advanced) also snubbed the Mesolithic period as well due to its very early farming. And later, some societies, due to their backwardness, never went through any Bronze Age but lingered behind until the Iron Age. For newer and even past discoveries, in order to more clearly define a time period they should belong to; more relevant regional terms and timelines have crept into several archeological camps because the old system is either too vague or not applicable. This is especially true beginning with the Mesolithic time period and into the Neolithic. Of the time periods occurring later, the Bronze Age and Iron Age are often found nearly as inappropriate. While the idea of a Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age made sense to archeologists in the early 1800s, they weren’t based on enough data. Obviously it was expected progress would be more uniform. Since far fewer discoveries have been made concerning the Paleolithic time period (the very first time period), and since stone toolmaking capabilities is the basis upon which the Paleolithic was established, the Paleolithic hasn’t been problematic as with the time periods which followed. It is only the differences in stone toolmaking capabilities which separates (characterizes) the Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Sometimes however scientific references to humans during the Old Stone Age (Paleolithic) are tied to geological time frames instead... if a relationship was important to note. Still, while the Stone Age needed to be subdivided by distinguishable differences, it was perhaps presumptuous, shallow and premature to establish stone toolmaking capabilities as the basis. While it may be the only known differences, I think something more distinguishably different exists… albeit unproven as yet. I will point out this great difference shortly... but, being just one difference, I'm suggesting the Paleolithic should only have two parts, not three. But first, as to the earliest alleged stone tools, the so-called ‘pebble tools’, of which the Lower Paleolithic was based upon, are barely distinguishable from any other little rock. I have great doubts the livelihood of early man depended upon such featureless tools. Perhaps in most cases, pebble stones were no more a tool than say… in lieu of a hammer we might use our shoe. Even today, on occasion, we still use rocks… as a weapon, to prop something up or as handy weights (like to keep a tarp from blowing away). Yet, while we still use rocks, we don’t consider them tools. Once a farmer, and of all the rocks I’ve ever used, if they are to be considered tools and that I should therefore keep them, I would need a warehouse. Besides, early man could have been, after all, vegetarians, with no real need for stone tools. Wood, in the earliest days, probably dominated the scene instead. Besides wood being much lighter than stone and easier to haul around, it would also be easier to construct a wooden tool. Furthermore, wooden tools could be made to serve a thousand purposes, to almost any level of complexity and sophistication. Even a simple stick can serve many purposes… more purposes than any one rock. While stone tools (as weapons) would be more appropriate for killing large animals, whenever than began to occur, but for whatever application, I think stone tools were viewed upon by the ancients as ‘heavy construction’ equipment, much like a sledge hammer would be considered today. In this respect, if our earliest ancestors were vegetarians for the most part, otherwise only to occasionally kill small animals and birds for food, perhaps most often only by trapping them, would explain their lack of ‘sophisticated’ stone tools. Nor would fishing require stone tools. While this wouldn’t necessary affect the basis for defining that era (toolmaking capabilities), it throws the wrong light on our most ancient ancestors. To be judged to any extent whatsoever by their stone tools is wrong because there is a limit to how sophisticated a stone tool can be, and it is extremely limited. Wooden toolsThis would not be the case with their wooden tools however, the possible variety and useful applications could be almost innumerable, but sadly because these tools were wooden, few, if any, would survive the ages. Indeed, some of their wooden tools could have consisted of parts, bound together with pegs and sinew. Besides tools, there surely were wooden ‘devices’ created during the Stone Age on occasion. As sure as the sun sets, I believe it. Further, some likely had moving parts. After all, to construct something wooden with a moving part doesn't necessarily mean it has to be complicated. A gravity reliant latch would be an example and most likely such a device was employed in a trap… even a jointed (elbow-flexible) shaft perhaps, designed to pivot upon the slightest touch. If latches and triggers are not to be considered moving parts then perhaps there were devises wind or water driven. I believe stone tools came into being as a result of humans progressively becoming more reliant on meat for food. In order to kill bigger animals for more meat, an efficiency consideration, bigger and more specialized stone tools (weapons) were needed although some stone tools (flint or obsidian) would have existed previously for cutting and skinning purposes. Only children, it seems, would use those scientifically-heralded pebble stones. In this respect, from the progressive state of stone toolmaking capabilities over the ages, one cannot conclude the early stages of tool development reflected a time of lesser intelligence… the earliest men may have been primarily vegetarians. In that case therefore, the Old Stone Age evolved from the passive days of vegetarianism to the aggressive days of carnivorousness. While the changeover was assuredly gradual, as gradual as the evolution in tool-making, the types of tools found may reflect this change. I’ll explain the really profound difference next and concerns vegetarianism. I think they were vegetarians not just because killing large animals required stone weapons, something they must go to the trouble of constructing, but because, in their social upbringing, there was a stigma attached to killing. If so, then it would logically follow a stigma would be attached to the eating of flesh. Call it a spiritual thing. However, as much distaste early man may have had for killing and eating the flesh of animals, he probably knew it was necessary at times. Over time, it became more acceptable. It shouldn’t be too hard to imagine how disgusting the eating of animal flesh would seem if influenced thusly by society... like cannibalism is today. Mankind may not have been carnivorous to any extent for quite some time. If the earliest humans were primarily vegetarians, then, it seems, we should expect to find grinding tools, like a mono, or more likely a recognizable metate. However, gathering grain in the wild wouldn’t yield enough to require special grinding tools. Gatherable yields require the act of farming. Until then, for a few handfuls of grain, any rock and hard spot would do. Yet, if the ancients were primarily nomads as often suggested, then finding a rock with evidential wear would be unlikely. Nobody would ever carry these rocks to their next location, not in a sea of rocks. Perhaps someday such a metate will be found however, indicating permanence but also... farming. I believe farming has been taking place since the very beginning. In summary, I believe archeologists have been irresponsible in presenting to the public our ancient past. You can't extrapolate from a few facts the full picture. Nor do they seem to fathom how much the missing data could change it. It is wholly premature to paint a picture based on a single discovery, as if each finding was the Holy Grail... the missing link. To do so is shamefully grandstanding. While the credo of science is to stick to the facts, except archeologists simply can't draw an accurate picture from a couple of facts. With stone tools effectively being the only evidence of the caveman's existence, the public has been purposefully left with the impression stone tools were the extent of the caveman's sophistication. Yes, I'm made assumptions and speculated here but so does science... by trying to make one percent of the story the whole story. A.O. Kime
These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
Ask your bookstore for titles by A.O.
Kime This website and contents are explained in our Introduction >TOP >HOME ... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
for information on
'renting' this article, see 
