Culture Traditions and Environment of Early Man

Abstract

The purpose of this paper has been to consider the evolution of stone technology in the context of culture traditions. It has been shown that particular patterns of tool making, recognized by special tool types and metrical and quantitative similarities, emerge after the Oldowan. They fall into two main traditions, the Acheulian and the Clactonian-Charentian, with differing distributions overlapping in Western Europe. Reasons are given for rejecting the view that patterns of culture traits in assemblages are random, or that they are made by a single evolving community capable of turning out two or more styles of assemblage at will for functional reasons. It is argued that much of the observed variation indicates cultural evolution. In the Clactonian of Europe, four successive post Mindel stages are distinguished, and in the Charentian at least one stage before the Eem. Five Acheulian stages between the Mindel and Eem are postulated. Typical Acheulian is surprisingly hard to locate in the Eem, but a successor in the Mousterian of Europe is better established. Subtraditions of clearly Acheulian derivation are noted from the Eem. The principles of naming are discussed with the conclusion that the most suitable form for culture traditions is the adjectival based on type sites, such as Acheulian, and that a terminology based on tool-type names is liable to be misleading. A list of hypotheses is suggested with a view to systematization of the available data on early man. Finally, the hominid fossils are considered in the context of the hypothesis of two major traditions, primarily adapted to two major world zones: group I hominids of the Clactonian-Charentian and the circum-montane zone of Eurasia are shown to have distinct physical features; so are group II hominids of the Acheulian and tropical, temperate, and oceanic regions. Several subgroups within I and II are distinguished and discussed in relation to the origin of races.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.