Chronometric dating techniques in archaeology kkak main dgn kwan ayah

Homo erectus used a precision grip 1.7 million years ago, while A.

afarensis, lacked a full precision grip 3.1 million years ago, although this species had developed several but not all of the traits in its hand bones that are associated with the precision grip required for habitual toolmaking.

This is a asymmetric backed biface found in the Gargano region, belonging to MIS 9 or 11.

If it had been found in the Swabian Jura, it would have called a “Bocksteinmesser” , but these belong to a time after MIS5e and are common in some inventories of the Middle-East European Micoquian (Keilmessergruppen).

It is generally assumed that these desert sites were established during periods of more humid weather conditions which would have been attractive to visitors.

We do not realy know why our ancestors began to reduced the lenght of total cutting edge per artifact and switched to a new technology.

Maybe new tasks requiered a more precise target power performance, that could better achieved by backing and hafting.

The genesis of this paradigm is seen when Roe demonstrated that a typical ficron, ovate and cleaver can have the same figure for the width/length ratio despite their obvious differences in shape.

He identified that the major difference between these three shapes is in the position of the maximum width (L₁).

Search for chronometric dating techniques in archaeology:

chronometric dating techniques in archaeology-55chronometric dating techniques in archaeology-85

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “chronometric dating techniques in archaeology”