Figure 4 - uploaded by Roy Ellen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tylor received from Harrison some sketches of "Eoliths ranging onto Palaeoliths", encouraged to do so by Pitt-Rivers' Evolution of Culture (PRM Tylor Papers: Harrison to Tylor, 14 November 1907: Item 11).
Source publication
The eolith debate mirrors the development and demise of evolutionist anthropology in Britain between 1880 and 1940. This paper traces the connections between some of the key protagonists in the controversy, especially those associated with the Pitt-Rivers Museum at Oxford. The evolutionist pre-occupation of early Oxford anthropology with the contin...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... for return of sketches of the eolith-palaeolith sequence, Tylor received from Harrison Figure 3. Selection of Tylor's collection of Harrisonian eoliths in the Pitt-Rivers Museum (PRM 1912(PRM .30.1-50, 1917.53.1-44), illustrating some of the main types as recognized by Harrison. some sketches of "Eoliths ranging on to Palaeoliths", encouraged to do so by Pitt- Rivers' The Evolution of Culture 22 (Figure 4). A letter from Harrison in December 1907 was still asking for the return of the sketches, 23 while in the last letter in the series dated May 1908 Tylor encourages Harrison to present a paper at the Anthropological Institute. ...
Citations
... Some quite complicated, undeniably "fabricated" tools made of several separate interconnected parts may not be used on more than two or three occasions. One case was a bamboo sago pounder (Ellen 2004: fig. 7), which in 1975 took 15 minutes to make, and which if I had not acquired it may have been used intensively over a period of several days and then discarded as the components began to weaken. ...
... However, with regard to the history of prehistoric archaeology, the most acrimonious and perplexing episode relevant to the debate around found and minimal tools is that pertaining to eoliths. Eoliths were purported stone tools found in pre-Acheulian deposits ultimately in many parts of the world, but associated in Britain especially with the Weald of Kent and the work of Benjamin Harrison (Ellen 2011(Ellen , 2013Ellen andMuthana 2010, 2013). Many of the objects found by Harrison passed the test of being geologically plausible (that is, in the right place for the right time) but were problematic from an "anthropological" perspective. ...
... However, with regard to the history of prehistoric archaeology, the most acrimonious and perplexing episode relevant to the debate around found and minimal tools is that pertaining to eoliths. Eoliths were purported stone tools found in pre-Acheulian deposits ultimately in many parts of the world, but associated in Britain especially with the Weald of Kent and the work of Benjamin Harrison (Ellen 2011(Ellen , 2013Ellen andMuthana 2010, 2013). Many of the objects found by Harrison passed the test of being geologically plausible (that is, in the right place for the right time) but were problematic from an "anthropological" perspective. ...
... General guidelines were employed in this analysis (Andrefsky Jr., 2005;Bordes, 1981;De Sonneville-Bordes & Perrot, 1956;Inizan et al., 1995;Merino, 1994;Piel-Desruisseaux, 1989); as well as a survey of a great deal of specific literature, mainly resulting from middle-range research to understand prehistoric lithic technologies (Callahan, 1979;Nami, 1986; among others). Also considered were the different natural agents causing ambiguous stone objects, a topic that was crucial in this investigation (Ellen, 2011;Grayson, 1986;Raynal et al., 1995; among others). The sample was carefully documented with photographs, as well as technical drawings that helped visualize some attributes that were difficult to Archaeological Discovery (Table 2). ...
Between 1966 and 1972, Richard MacNeish led the “Ayacucho Archaeological-Botanical Project” in the Ayacucho Basin, south-central Peru. Over the last decade, we reappraised the lithics recovered in this endeavor. As part of this research, we carried out a detailed review of the lithic remains from the lowest strata of Pikimachay Cave. We concluded that the lithics from layers tentatively dated at about 14,000 uncalibrated yr BP are human-made artifacts, while those from the underlying levels are not. Because of the anthropic nature of the flaked artifacts, their stratigraphic position, chronology, and similarities with other likely coeval lithic assemblages, the Pikimachay record seems to be a good candidate for witnessing possible Paleoamerican foragers
living in Ayacucho during the Late Pleistocene.
... Two examples are the assemblages of the Calico site near Barstow in California [71,100], and Toca do Boqueirão do Sítio da Pedra Furada in southern Piauí, Brazil [63,64], but there are many others. Another expression of this problem is the "eolith debate" that began in England in the 1880s [55,98] and is still not fully resolved [51,62,97,107]. ...
It has long been appreciated that there are many applications of tribology in the geological sciences. These range in scale from microscopic levels to those of intercontinental tectonic processes. Some of the key aspects of geotribology are briefly discussed to illustrate the advantages of such an interdisciplinary approach, before exploring the even greater benefits of applying tribological methods to many aspects of archaeology. That discipline comprises a vast array of physical evidence that derives from tribological processes and cannot be credibly explained by traditional archaeology. Many of these processes are briefly described, and the methodology required to define and elucidate them is discussed. The paper concludes that, for the further development of archaeology and the study of rock art, it is essential to establish a sub-discipline of archaeotribology.
... With this new group also came a gradual shift in interest from the Kentish Eoliths to the somewhat less controversial East Anglian pre-palaeoliths, and in particular, the 'rostrocarinates.' Sollas effectively rejected the Kentish eoliths, and fluctuated on the East Anglian pre-palaeoliths, while still according the Tasmanian tools a crucial analogical role (Ellen 2011). Harrison engaged with the new generation of scholars through the Institute, as we know from his correspondence and delivery of specimens to Sollas (Ellen 2011: 293-4), the letters and visits of Larkby, 33 H.P. Blackmore, 34 Warren, and others. ...
From the 1880s onwards, the Anthropological Institute played a key role in arguments surrounding eoliths, both as a venue for significant events and through the pages of its journals. Eoliths, stone objects claimed to be man-made and regarded by ‘eolithophiles’ as the precursors of handaxes, had become an issue almost as soon as the first chipped flints had been accepted as artifacts in the mid-nineteenth century. The ensuing debate, that drew in many luminaries of the age – such as Edward Tylor, John Evans, Alfred Russel Wallace and Joseph Prestwich – in many ways exemplified the changing relationship between amateurs and professionals in the affairs of the Institute, and between the different branches of evolutionist anthropology, addressing questions of scientific method, the use of ethnographic analogies, and contributing to the splits between the branches, and the eventual supremacy of the professionals by the eve of the Second World War.
The Palaeolith collection of the antiquarian Dr Tom Armstrong Bowes was the founding component of Herne Bay's first museum and became one of the larger and more significant collections in the British Palaeolithic record. Its value to debates on the British Palaeolithic, however, has been limited by a stark lack of contextual data. Previously unstudied museum archives have now begun to unlock the lost provenance of this large collection so that it once again can contribute to long-standing regional questions on Acheulean typologies.
Archaeologists use a method of evaluating the characteristics of flakes, called scoring, to distinguish geofacts (pseudo‐artefacts or eoliths) from artefacts. Lower total scores are considered indicative of a natural source of the finds, while higher ones support the opposite. However, this method has some limitations. The most important are the small quantity of assemblages subject to such an analysis and the unclear boundary drawn by a ranking within a point‐based score evaluation between collections with finds of cultural and anthropic origin. Here, we present a method that minimizes these limitations. It consists of a statistical approach using scoring percentages, a new method of visualizing them and the application of clustering. This way, we obtained clear differences between pseudo‐artefacts and artefacts by considering flakes from six flint assemblages from Central Europe as well as an experimental assemblage.
Studies focusing on the history of collections generally emphasize what is estimable about them, but how should we make sense of collections that, once held in high regard, have subsequently been judged worthless? Such is the case for eoliths, stone objects resembling early artifacts, which held a pivotal position in arguments concerning the origins of human tool‐making, but which are now largely considered nonartifactual. This article discusses the circumstances in which eolith collections were assembled, with reference to national and local museums in southeast England, but is mainly concerned with how and why, with the passing of the eolithic heyday, so many objects described as eoliths were lost, why others remain in museums, and what this tells us about curatorial practice.
The first colonization of the Americas has always been a hotly debated issue. One of the current discussions is the presence of assemblages (and thus human occupation) in the Americas dating from or before the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM), i. e. before ca. 20.000 years ago. Many archaeologists are skeptical about the presence of humans in the Americas before the LGM, considering that the claim is not yet sustained by hard evidence. Indeed, there are relevant concerns about the published pre-LGM assemblages. The Boqueirão da Pedra Furada rock-shelter (Brazil) is one of the most famous and published pre-LGM sites from the Americas. However, the site has so far been considered very ambiguous because all alleged artifacts are simple cobble tools made on the same raw material cobbles as those naturally falling from the cliff’s wall hanging above the site. Nonetheless, for É. Boëda and co-workers, who have been working at various sites of the region for the last decade, researchers that are still skeptical about the anthropic origin of the assemblages have a psychological barrier and no scientific arguments. Were all skeptics completely blinded by their preconceptions that they could not see the obvious and unambiguous evidence coming out of these South American LGM/ pre-LGM sites ? In order to find out, I dove into the publications of the Piauí sites. Why the Piauí sites ? Because for the last 40 years there has been extensive research and publications on Boqueirão da Pedra Furada and related sites, thus offering the possibility of a detailed analysis. According to É. Boëda, most critics never took the time to go back to the published data. So to take up the challenge and refine my own judgment, I launched a large-scale comparative analysis of the published data on the Piauí site (close to 60 publications, including peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, unpublished master and PhD theses) concerning the Piauí sites, from the first article announcing the discovery of Boqueirão da Pedra Furada published in Nature in 1986 to the most recent research articles of the É. Boëda team in 2021. These publications include original research from the N. Guidon and F. Parenti excavations, from É. Boëda’s excavations, original work by other researchers, original ethological studies on tool-use by capuchin monkeys, as well as points of view from outside archaeologists arguing either for or against the anthropic nature of these sites.
In the following sections, I will present some of the main concerns archaeologists have with Boqueirão da Pedra Furada and other related sites (Vale da Pedra Furada, Sítio do Meio, Toca da Pena, Toca da Janela da Barra do Antonião, Toca da Tira Peia, etc). Indeed, the problems do not only lie in the geological context of the sites, but also with the raw materials, the selection protocol of artifacts (i. e., how archaeologists determine alleged artifacts within the large quantity of natural cobbles in the sediment), the taphonomical analyses of natural cobbles, the use-wear analysis and the anthropic nature of the structures and hearths. In the introduction of their very first article, É. Boëda and his colleagues state that “ this very passionate debate is actually little suited for scientific argument” and “ it would thus be futile to present arguments” and that we simply have “ to trust” in their capabilities. But the fact is that there are many questions about Pedra Furada and the Piauí sites that have yet to be addressed.
The outcome of my analysis is straightforward : the anthropic nature of the LGM/ pre-LGM levels of Pedra Furada and the other Piauí sites has not been demonstrated based on the data presently available in the scientific literature. Throughout this article, my goal is to show that far from skepticism based on ideological grounds with no scientific basis, many and major scientific issues remain with the Piauí sites. The present article focuses on deconstructing the methodological caveats concerning the alleged pre-LGM artifacts and structures/ hearths from Boqueirão da Pedra Furada and other related sites from the Piauí region. The final outcome of this analysis, based on the analysis of the numerous published data, is that it is difficult to support a human presence in this region during or before the Last Glacial Maximum. However, the published data seem to convincingly establish a human presence at these sites starting with the Serra Talhada phases (Pleistocene/ Holocene transition). Is it because the chronology is then acceptable and fits our colonization model ? No, the reason lies in the available and published archaeological data : (1) to date, no taphonomical study has been published to exclude the presence of geofacts in the assemblages from the older Pedra Furada phases ; (2) ethological data show how Capuchin monkeys have been using and making simple stone tools for at least a few millennia ; (3) during the Serra Talhada phases (Pleistocene/ Holocene transition), we see the appearance of unambiguous tools, exogenous raw materials, pit hearths, rock art, human remains and human coprolites ; (4) current paleogenetic data show a peopling of the Americas (excluding Beringia) starting around 20,000 years ago.
