This is known as the “grand narrative” approach to history, which is notorious for selectively accounting for certain examples that fit a preconceived conceptua

This is known as the “grand narrative” approach to history, which is notorious for selectively accounting for certain examples that fit a preconceived conceptual framework, such as the one I described in my previous post, while dismissing dead ends and examples that run counter to the framework. Because you’re looking for a series of preceding things that lead to the frying pan, you will find them. And if you’re not looking for the series of decisions and experiences that go into making a stone biface, such as knowing what raw materials to use, where they are located, how to collect it, what properties the materials have, the experience of fucking up enough times and persisting despite cutting your hands up with a hammer stone countless times, etc, you will ignore them and dismiss the biface as a “simple” tool. Alternatively, consider a more pragmatic perspective. From where I stand as an archaeologist, technology is only as good as the experience and know-how of the people who use it and it’s suitability in relation to particular goals. I dare you to try and open a can of beans using your laptop. From a pragmatic perspective, advancement doesn’t exist, just the relations between the actor, the tool, the goal and the prior knowledge and experience that animates the activity.