Neolithic Tools: Technology, Culture, and Urban Growth

Annotated Bibliography

Zhang, J., Harbottle, G., Wang, C., & Kong, Z. (1999). Oldest playable musical instruments found at Jiahu early Neolithic site, China. Nature, 401(23 Sept 1999), 366–368.

This article reports on the discovery of playable multi-note instruments dated between 7000 BC and 5700 BC. These included six flutes made from the ulnae of the red-crowned crane, each featuring multiple holes. These 9,000-year-old instruments not only show evidence of Neolithic tool use in their construction, but also play an important role in terms of Chinese cultural context. They serve as evidence that entertainment was something these cultures valued and were willing to expend energy creating specialized tools for.

Liu, L., Field, J., Fullagar, R., Bestel, S., & Chen, X. (2010). What did grinding stones grind? New light on early Neolithic subsistence economy in the Middle Yellow River Valley, China. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&context=scipapers

Grinding stones are among the earliest examples of technological development, and this paper explores the purposes they served. They were mainly used to process acorns. Such tools represent one step along the path from hunter-gatherer activities to farming — gathering acorns, but processing them with tools more suited to a settled environment. This study comes from the Peiligang culture, which postdates the culture described in Zhang (1999) that produced the flutes.

Lu, L. (1998). The microblade tradition in China: Regional chronologies and significance in the transition to Neolithic. Asian Perspectives, 37(1), 84–112.

This paper discusses the tradition of microblades that spread across northeastern Asia and into North America from the late Pleistocene into the Holocene. Microblades were developed by the peoples of this region to perform a variety of tasks. The paper provides an overview of these earliest tools and traces their transition from prehistory into Neolithic times. These blades were generally part of the hunter-gatherer tradition, but would later evolve into more complex tools.

Hazarika, M. (2006). Neolithic culture of Northeast India: A recent perspective on the origins of pottery and agriculture. Ancient Asia. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from

This paper discusses pottery and agricultural tools in Northeast India, a region that lies at the crossroads of several important Neolithic cultures. Tools were developed specifically to assist with rice agriculture. The paper makes a modest contribution to the broader study of Neolithic tool use in this transitional geographic zone.

Akhtar, S., & Dhanani, M. (2015). Discoveries of Paleolithic and Neolithic artefacts in and around Karachi, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal, 47(3), 575–580.

This paper covers the Neolithic tool tradition in Sindh. The findings include a variety of flint tools and hand axes, again highlighting the role that the development of different tools played in the transition from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to farming. These findings also help trace the migration of early Paleolithic hunters out of Africa, via Arabia, and eastward into Asia.

Healey, E., & Campbell, S. (2014). Producing adornment: Evidence of different levels of expertise in the production of obsidian items of adornment at two late Neolithic communities in northern Mesopotamia. Journal of Lithic Studies, 1(2).

This paper examines the production of obsidian adornments. The authors found evidence that different sites had differing levels of proficiency in production, which informs our understanding of the diffusion rates of new technologies in the Neolithic. The authors also highlight the cultural context — specifically, why tools were developed during this period. Adornment, alongside the flutes found in China, stands as an example of tools being developed not for survival, but for cultural purposes.

Gessner, A. (2014). Shared painting: The practice of decorating late Neolithic pottery in northern Mesopotamia. In Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward. Routledge.

This paper highlights the development of paints and the technologies by which they would be applied to pottery — such as brushes. It holds more value as a study of cultural context (why decoration mattered) and of how people shared knowledge during this period than as a study of the technology itself.

Drechsler, P., Berthold, C., al-Naimi, F., & Eichmann, R. (2013). Ceremonial objects or household items? Non-destructive studies on three Neolithic axes from Qatar. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 24(2), 119–124.

The authors examine axes and found that hematite was used in their production. This is significant because there was no local source of hematite in the region, indicating that materials were being traded across distances. It also suggests that the artefacts carried strong ceremonial value, again providing important cultural context for understanding Neolithic tool development.

Wright, K. (2014). Domestication and inequality: Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 33(March 2014), 1–33.

This article examines tools at Çatalhöyük, perhaps the largest known Neolithic settlement, for clues about which tools were used and how they were distributed across society. The author notes that while many tools were common to all households, certain tools such as millstones were less widespread, likely due to their size and acquisition cost. Some households had more storage-related tools than others, suggesting a degree of economic inequality among the inhabitants. Tool distribution also indicates increasing specialization — that is, the development of skill in working with specific tools for specific tasks. This is a valuable study of tool development and social structure during this era.

Fullagar, R., Stephenson, B., & Hayes, E. (2016). Grinding grounds: Function and distribution of grinding stones from an open site in the Pilbara, WA. Quaternary International. In press.

This paper investigates Neolithic technologies in Australia, focusing on grinding stones. These were used primarily for grinding seeds, though animal products and tubers were also processed at some sites. These stones were essential to subsistence in the region, and there is evidence that temporary settlements may have formed around them.

Hypothesis One: Regional Divergence in Technological Advancement

The first hypothesis is that the development of Neolithic tools was relatively similar across regions up until the mid-Holocene, but that differences in technological advancement emerged from that point onward. The studies examined indicate fairly wide geographic dispersion of tools such as grinding stones and small blades, but more limited dispersion of complex tools during the Neolithic period. Australia, for example, did not see much development beyond this stage. Other areas that would later become technologically advanced, such as China, seemed slow to move beyond basic Neolithic tools, at least in comparison to cultures like those of Mesopotamia.

There are two main counterarguments to this hypothesis. The first is to accept the proposition but to seek explanatory factors. The second is to argue that the gaps in technological development were not that significant until well after the Neolithic period. The timeframe required for a culture to transition from the Neolithic into the Bronze Age, for example, is relevant here. If there were differences among cultures, those differences may have been temporary. Knowledge sharing was slow, but it did occur. And cultures like Çatalhöyük did not endure in the long run, regardless of what additional developments might have taken place there.

Conclusion

There are a number of hypotheses that can be examined across this body of literature, and it is worth taking a closer look at the research in order to study some of these issues further.

References

Akhtar, S., & Dhanani, M. (2015). Discoveries of Paleolithic and Neolithic artefacts in and around Karachi, Pakistan. Sindh University Research Journal, 47(3), 575–580.

Drechsler, P., Berthold, C., al-Naimi, F., & Eichmann, R. (2013). Ceremonial objects or household items? Non-destructive studies on three Neolithic axes from Qatar. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 24(2), 119–124.

Fullagar, R., Stephenson, B., & Hayes, E. (2016). Grinding grounds: Function and distribution of grinding stones from an open site in the Pilbara, WA. Quaternary International. In press.

Gessner, A. (2014). Shared painting: The practice of decorating late Neolithic pottery in northern Mesopotamia. In Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East: New Paths Forward. Routledge.

Hazarika, M. (2006). Neolithic culture of Northeast India: A recent perspective on the origins of pottery and agriculture. Ancient Asia. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from

Healey, E., & Campbell, S. (2014). Producing adornment: Evidence of different levels of expertise in the production of obsidian items of adornment at two late Neolithic communities in northern Mesopotamia. Journal of Lithic Studies, 1(2).

Liu, L., Field, J., Fullagar, R., Bestel, S., & Chen, X. (2010). What did grinding stones grind? New light on early Neolithic subsistence economy in the Middle Yellow River Valley, China. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1684&context=scipapers

Lu, L. (1998). The microblade tradition in China: Regional chronologies and significance in the transition to Neolithic. Asian Perspectives, 37(1), 84–112.

Wright, K. (2014). Domestication and inequality: Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 33(March 2014), 1–33.

Zhang, J., Harbottle, G., Wang, C., & Kong, Z. (1999). Oldest playable musical instruments found at Jiahu early Neolithic site, China. Nature, 401(23 Sept 1999), 366–368.