Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:04:41.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modes of Prehension of some forms of Upper Palaeolithic Implements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2013

Alfred S. Barnes
Get access

Extract

Common sense and simple experiment have already indicated certain ways in which some of the more common forms of Upper Palaeolithic implements may have been held. Thus for example, there is a general consensus of opinion that knife blades were held either by the butt end only, or by the butt with the index finger extended along the back of the tool. When however, we come to consider other types of tools, such as the scrapers, we find that there are a number of possible ways in which such tools may be held. The actual way or ways in which these tools were held becomes therefore, largely a matter of conjecture unless we can fortify our opinion by relevant facts relating to some particular mode or modes of prehension.

To guide us in selecting the particular way in which a tool was held from the many possible ways in which it could be held, we have the following factors:—

(i) The general shape of the tool.

(ii) The character of the traces of wear on the cutting edge due to use.

(iii) The situation and character of any special trimming which may have been made to facilitate prehension.

(iv) The degree of comfort or freedom from constraint with which a tool may be used in a given position.

(v) The frequency of occurrence of tools of certain lengths and widths which are comparable with the average dimensions of the human hand when gripping an object in certain ways.

(vi) The mode of prehension of stone tools adopted by existing primitive races.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , 1932 , pp. 43 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1932

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 43 note 1 Bourlon, M.. Essai de classification des Burins. Revue de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie. Paris, July, 1911Google Scholar.

page 43 note 2 Hauser, O.. Neue Dokumente zur Menscheits-Ceschichte. Band 1, Weimar, 1928Google Scholar.

page 43 note 3 MissLayard, N. F.. “Flint Tools,” Suffolk Institute of Archæology. Vol. XVII, part 1. 1919Google Scholar.

page 44 note 1 Cheynier, A.. Note concernant des Outils multiple Faléolithiqucs. Bulletin de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française, No. 4. 1932Google Scholar.

page 45 note 1 Octobon, E.. La Station de Limé (Aisne). Soc. Prehist. Française Tome XXIX, No. 2, Feb., 1923. p. 103Google Scholar.

page 45 note 2 Balfour, H.. “The Status of the Tasmanians among stone age peoples.” Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. Anglia, Vol. V, part 1. 1925Google Scholar.

page 45 note 3 For an explanation of this term see Barnes, “The dimensions of flint implements.” Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. Anglia. Vol. VI, pt. 2. 1928–1929Google Scholar.

page 47 note 1 Bouyssonie, A.Bouyssonie, J. and Bardon, L.. Grattoir caréné et ses derivées Revue de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie de Paris, 1906. p. 408Google Scholar.