Stone Tools: Prehistoric Technical Communication in Action: Misty A. Adams
Stone Tools: Prehistoric Technical Communication in Action: Misty A. Adams
Stone Tools: Prehistoric Technical
Communication in Action
Misty A. Adams
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
Ascertaining the historical value, or perhaps more correctly, the
existence of a history of Technical Communication has long been an Achilles’
heel of the discipline. It is as misunderstood and debated as what is the true
definition of Technical Communication. If we define technical communication
as the process of conveying technical information through writing, speech,
and other media to a specific audience, then it may be safely suggested that
technical communication existed before written language, perhaps even prior
to verbal language. I suggest this due to evidence provided by Stone Age
tools. Such tools were created by flintknapping; "flint," as a generic term,
refers to “any lithic material which fractures conchoidally upon force being
loaded into that material; this is the very basis of all flaked stone tool
techniques. "Knapping," according to Webster’s dictionary, means "to break
or shape (stones or flints) by a quick, hard blow." As an anthropological term,
flintknapping is simply the manufacture of stone tools by the reductive
processes of flaking or chipping.” (5) Prior to written language information
was disseminated verbally, by example, or by a combination of the two. The
ability to manufacture tools during the Lithic age was integral to survival,
therefore it is reasonable to imagine that the particular skill of flintknapping
was taught and passed down to each successive generation through hands on
instruction. This idea can be supported by understanding the difficulty of
2
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
creating a stone tool in our modern era without the benefit of hands on
instruction.
Despite the traditional view of the scientific separation between the
prehistoric and the historic phase of a culture as the separation between the
written and the unwritten, it can well be argued that technical
communication existed prior to written communication. As commonly
expressed, the prehistoric phase of the history of a particular people or ethnic
group would end and the historic phase begin with the first written record of
that people. (7) Yet we know technical information was disseminated prior to
written language; and so to apply the same division to technical
communication, to assume it was absent from prehistoric communications, is
unreasonable. “In fact, the unwritten, the true prehistoric, never ends, and the
task of the archeologist has an unlimited future as it has an inexhaustible
past. Concrete examples may serve further to illustrate the relation of history
and the so‐called prehistory‐‐that is, of the written and the unwritten phases
of the human record.” (7) Stone tools and their manufacture impart
knowledge even into our modern age, furthering the view that they are, in
fact, artifacts of technical communication and may be studied as such. As
anthropologists and archaeologists study prehistoric tools in order to
understand the past, so too may technical communicators study them in
order to better comprehend how information was disseminated throughout
3
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
human history.
Integral to the idea of Lithic age tools as artifacts of technical
communication is a rudimentary understanding of flintknapping. The
following are three short videos about flintknapping by John Olsen, an expert
knapper. The first video is a brief introduction to flintknapping. The second
illustrates the found objects used to flintknap. The third video illustrates how
these objects were used to make various tools. (10, 8, 9)
Flintknapping Defined Types of Stone Used for Flintknapping How to Make Stone Age Tools
These videos exhibit but a fraction of the knowledge required to
effectively make and use stone tools. The production of tools was, essentially,
learned technology disseminated through visual and “hands on” means to
others. Identifying which rocks to use as percussion tools, which stones
would fracture and flake, the use of other items (bone, wood, etc.) as tools,
was not inherent knowledge for Lithic age hominids. The skill required to
produce tools and implements was the end result of considerable trial and
error and can only have been shared through hands on, visual instruction.
4
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
One of the earliest known stone tool sites is found in the Olduvai Gorge
in what is now Tanzania. Discovered by L.S.B Leakey and Mary Douglas
Leakey in the 1930’s, subsequent study has shown that artifacts from this site
date to approximately 1.8 million years ago. These earliest implements are
rudimentary and it is thought they were made by striking one stone against
another until a sharpened edge appeared. Used for sawing and cutting, the
Leakeys christened the inhabitants of the era Homo habilis, or “able man”,
implying that this was the first group to exhibit tool‐making capability. (11)
As time passed tools, and the techniques required to create them, became
more sophisticated. “Reduction sequences” refer to the systematic process of
removing flakes and pieces to “reduce” the stone to a tool. The more complex
the tool and its process of manufacture, the greater the number of reduction
sequences. (2) In our modern era, Alonzo W. Pond, an early 20th Century
archaeologist, recorded the skill and knowledge of flintknapper Halvor L.
Skavlem. Skavlem discussed and adeptly demonstrated concepts of flaked
stone tool reduction technologies, various flintknapping techniques as related
to particular knapping tools, bending fractures, hinge fractures as well as
other pertinent information. Skavlem maintained that the morphology of the
stone was less important than the flintknapper's ability to produce an end
product or tool. (5) Research indicates flintknappers and replicators do not
have “mental templates” in their minds as they produce a flaked stone tool.
5
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
Instead they select from a "culturally" determined reduction technique to
reduce a specific size, shape, and geological type stone into a tool within their
acceptable cultural range of form and function.(5)
Gradually, during the development of lithic studies, flaked (or
knapped) stone tools became associated with purported functions. These
functions were then used to describe prehistoric human behavior and
cultures.(5) “The artifact type reflects conscious preferences and norms on
the part of the prehistoric people making and using the artifacts.”(2)
Archaeologists have traditionally used the morphology (shape) of certain
stone tools (projectile points in particular) to determine the presence,
distribution, and even demise of Lithic era cultures. (2) However, the
accuracy of morphological study has recently been questioned. “Our
explanations of prehistoric behavior, cognitive structures, and systemic
contexts are often generated from models of our own Western perspective of
ethnographic studies with the aid and guidance of highly technical,
sophisticated machinery. Ironically, [we] define primitive human behavior
with the most technically advanced equipment known.” (2) Researchers have
recently begun replicating stone tools and putting them, for lack of a better
term, “to work.” By replicating the conditions under which stone tools were
used (wear patterns, breakage, etc.) it is posited that a better, and more
accurate, understanding of Lithic cultures will be acquired.
6
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
Studies of Lithic era sites in the North American Ozark region have
turned up numerous stone tool artifacts, from arrow and spear points to
adzes, axes and knives that exhibit complex knapping techniques, an example
being the Ozark Bluff‐Dwellers and the artifacts of an unnamed “upper‐layer”
culture in northwestern Arkansas. (4) Interestingly, other North American
sites in relatively distant geographic areas have been studied resulting in
found artifacts that were identical in morphology to artifacts found in Bluff‐
Dweller sites, the most notable of these being the Nemaha site in
northeastern Kansas. (4) The following is a table excerpted from M. R.
Harrington’s The Ozark BluffDwellers illustrating these findings.
7
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
Since we have already determined the Lithic era as prior to written
communication, the explanation of these morphological similarities in tools
can only be explained as shared information. In this aspect these tools are a
testament to the effectiveness of prehistoric visual technical communication.
In addition to the similarities between the stone tools find at these
sites, Harrington also takes particular note of atlatls found at the Bluff‐
Dweller sites:
“The type of atlatl (P1. III B), of which one complete and several broken
examples were secured, is made of wood, about 19 inches long, with a
projection at one end, against which the butt of the spear was rested, and a
transverse peg at the other end for grasping, a type differing in detail from all
spear‐throwers hitherto known, excepting an Aztec type found in the ruins of
a temple in the City of Mexico. “ (4)
Exactly what Harrington is implying with this information is never
made clear. Does he suggest that the Bluff‐Dweller culture migrated south to
Mexico? Or is he suggesting that prehistoric travel and trade routes were
vaster than hitherto assumed? Or is he suggesting the possibility that two
different cultures, separated by hundreds of miles, could conceive of identical
implements? The last of these is not completely fantastical considering the
8
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
archaeological evidence of stone tools on every continent. But this idea may
be more supportive evidence of Pangaea than anything else. No matter
Harrington’s intent, he does provide sound evidence of technological
dissemination across cultures in an era prior to written communication.
Archaeological, anthropological and ethnographic research has
provided a wealth of documentation concerning prehistoric technical
communication, if admittedly only by accident. Tools and implements of
antiquity communicate to us, through them we learn about humanity’s varied
past cultures in the hope of better understanding today. Stone tools illustrate
the ability and the need of human beings to communicate, to disseminate
information beyond themselves and outside of their group. It can be
suggested that the basis of technical communication is much, much older than
just written communication. It is perhaps even possible to posit the existence
of technical communication before the advent of verbal language. Either way,
if we choose to ignore the evidence of prehistoric technological dissemination
and only apply the theories and ideas of technical communication to written
documentation then we short‐change ourselves and limit the true scope of
our discipline.
9
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
References
10
Misty A. Adams
TCH 361 Artifact Paper
http://www.jstor.org/stable/277562 Accessed: 14/10/2009 23:15
11