5 ms·

Prehistoric collectors recycled stone tools to preserve the memory of ancestors

18 points by diodorus 5y ago

woliveirajr 5y ago
If the tools were used again, perhaps they did it just because was easy. Reusing some tool doesn't require you to honour, preserve or remember ancestors.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  I agree - supporting details are even brought up in the paper itself, except it is presented as a "baffling discovery": > [I]n their second lifecycle the tools were reshaped in a very specific and minimal manner, preserving the original form of the tool, including its patina, and only slightly modifying the active edge. If I need to make my own knives any time I want to use one, I think it would be easier to pick up an old dull knife and sharpen it a little bit, instead of making a brand new knife from scratch.
  - shakezula 5y ago
    I, too, wonder how they reached the conclusion that these flint samples were specifically collected and not just recycled. I’m not fully convinced their findings support the collection claim, but I also don’t consider it far-fetched that flint and other tools were passed down through generations and collected or honored by descendants. What I do find interesting is that in your quoted passage note the second use was seemingly lighter duty. Maybe they had an understanding of wear cycles for flint and adjusted use accordingly?
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      With steel you try to keep edge angle same, but I think that might be much harder with flint and as such the angle is likely to change. And best angle might be with the freshly made tool so you keep using those when you need it and relegate the old ones for other use.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Or maybe they were pre-historic hoarders... Why waste "perfectly" good and usable tool, surely they needed it one day and they don't take that much space... I really don't see need to subscribe everything to religion or culture...
mellavora 5y ago
> In a modern analogy, the prehistoric human may be likened to a young farmer still plowing his fields with his great-grandfather's rusty old tractor, replacing parts now and then, but preserving the good old machine as is, because it symbolizes his family's bond with the land. Or maybe, instead of a symbol of a family bond with the land, the old tractor is something the owner can repair themself, not something controlled by the manufacturer. And maybe it is higher quality than what is available today. And it gets the job done.
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  In Soviet Russia, you HAD to repair it yourself! Mandatory! The factory never wanted to see your face again, so the manual was also very much blueprint, schematics and machining instructions for the repairs. It was higher quality than is available today, actually, and Belorussia still has a tractor factory. And they weren't the greatest efficiency but really great effectiveness: they did get the job done. And they worked for ever, just don't quit. Cubans remark the Soviet air conditioners and appliances don't crap out, period. Maybe the efficiency of American tractors is suited to their tests, I think it is, and the tests are always on a perfectly configured tractor on good terrain without counting the time and effort and error recovery of configuring it. In general the big scam of computerization is that it saves time, it mostly doesn't, doctors and policemen end up spending much more time on digital forms than on paper. Farmers can't be that different.

18 points by diodorus 5y ago

If the tools were used again, perhaps they did it just because was easy. Reusing some tool doesn't require you to honour, preserve or remember ancestors.

oh_sigh 5y ago
I agree - supporting details are even brought up in the paper itself, except it is presented as a "baffling discovery": > [I]n their second lifecycle the tools were reshaped in a very specific and minimal manner, preserving the original form of the tool, including its patina, and only slightly modifying the active edge. If I need to make my own knives any time I want to use one, I think it would be easier to pick up an old dull knife and sharpen it a little bit, instead of making a brand new knife from scratch.
- shakezula 5y ago
  I, too, wonder how they reached the conclusion that these flint samples were specifically collected and not just recycled. I’m not fully convinced their findings support the collection claim, but I also don’t consider it far-fetched that flint and other tools were passed down through generations and collected or honored by descendants. What I do find interesting is that in your quoted passage note the second use was seemingly lighter duty. Maybe they had an understanding of wear cycles for flint and adjusted use accordingly?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    With steel you try to keep edge angle same, but I think that might be much harder with flint and as such the angle is likely to change. And best angle might be with the freshly made tool so you keep using those when you need it and relegate the old ones for other use.
Ekaros 5y ago
Or maybe they were pre-historic hoarders... Why waste "perfectly" good and usable tool, surely they needed it one day and they don't take that much space... I really don't see need to subscribe everything to religion or culture...

mellavora 5y ago

> In a modern analogy, the prehistoric human may be likened to a young farmer still plowing his fields with his great-grandfather's rusty old tractor, replacing parts now and then, but preserving the good old machine as is, because it symbolizes his family's bond with the land. Or maybe, instead of a symbol of a family bond with the land, the old tractor is something the owner can repair themself, not something controlled by the manufacturer. And maybe it is higher quality than what is available today. And it gets the job done.

daniel-cussen 5y ago
In Soviet Russia, you HAD to repair it yourself! Mandatory! The factory never wanted to see your face again, so the manual was also very much blueprint, schematics and machining instructions for the repairs. It was higher quality than is available today, actually, and Belorussia still has a tractor factory. And they weren't the greatest efficiency but really great effectiveness: they did get the job done. And they worked for ever, just don't quit. Cubans remark the Soviet air conditioners and appliances don't crap out, period. Maybe the efficiency of American tractors is suited to their tests, I think it is, and the tests are always on a perfectly configured tractor on good terrain without counting the time and effort and error recovery of configuring it. In general the big scam of computerization is that it saves time, it mostly doesn't, doctors and policemen end up spending much more time on digital forms than on paper. Farmers can't be that different.