Anthropology / Everything Human

Paleolithic Ax Debunks Colonial Myth

Paleolithic Ax Debunks Colonial Myth

The discovery of the world’s oldest ground-edge ax in Australia exposes our faulty assumptions about race, place, and human evolution.

In May, Peter Hiscock, an archaeologist from the University of Sydney, and his colleagues reported their new conclusions about a fragment of a ground-edge ax from the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The flake had been excavated in the early 1990s but hadn’t been discovered among the rest of the excavated material until 2014.

This artifact is between 44,000 and 49,000 years old, making it the earliest evidence of ground-edge ax technology anywhere in the world. The age of the fragment closely coincides with the first arrival of modern humans on the continent, which archaeological evidence suggests occurred between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago. According to the research team, the fragment represents the independent invention of this technology by the first Australians. The manufacturing process developed to create these tools—which involves grinding and abrading the stone rather than only flaking it—is unique and uncommon outside of the region until around 10,000 years ago (during, for example, the European Mesolithic).

The report generated a lot of news—stories about the “oldest” anything often garner intense public interest. But there’s a bigger story behind why these research results matter, and to understand its significance we need to look at underlying assumptions about where and when human complexity developed and what form it took. “Human complexity” is an enigmatic concept in archeology, but it generally refers to the range of behaviors that help define what it is to be “human.” It has, for example, been linked to the development of increasingly sophisticated tools and social structures.

Historically, archaeological evidence from Australia and most of Southeast Asia has not aligned well with conceptual models of the development of human complexity. That’s because these models were based almost exclusively on the archaeological records of Europe and Africa. This geographical focus led many archaeologists to believe that other regions were impoverished and underdeveloped in comparison to the “normal” course of human history. Indeed, the emphasis on Europe and Africa became a bias.

In the 1940s, for example, Harvard University archaeologist Hallam Movius proposed the so-called Movius Line. This was a theoretical boundary—based on differences in stone-tool technology—drawn across parts of Europe and Asia to separate the supposedly static cultural regions of East and Southeast Asia during the Early Paleolithic (between about 2.7 million and 200,000 years ago) from the supposedly more dynamic ones in Africa and Western Eurasia. The concept was based on the absence of Acheulean bifaces, large two-sided tools (dated between about 1.6 million and 200,000 years ago) that have been integral to our understanding of increasing intelligence among some of our earliest Homo ancestors.

However, since the creation of the Movius Line, intensive fieldwork throughout Asia and a reassessment of certain biases embedded in this theory have brought about a reexamination of its validity and meaning. As British archaeologist Robin Dennell, one of the leading specialists in the Paleolithic period of Asia, argued earlier this year, the concept of the Movius Line “should be disregarded” completely. Dennell added that the Early Paleolithic record of East and Southeast Asia should be seen and treated as comparable to that of Eurasia—not held apart as “the product of an isolated backwater.”

The viewpoint that certain areas of the world are less enterprising or developed than others is also a key concern with regard to more recent time periods, including the early colonization and occupation of Sahul (the Pleistocene-era landmass that’s now Australia and New Guinea) by Homo sapiens between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago. The new conclusions about the Kimberley ax fragment shed light on this period.

Stone tools from the earliest occupation periods in Australia have previously been interpreted as simple and unsophisticated compared to those found elsewhere dating to the same time frame. This discrepancy has led to problematic interpretations about their makers. For example, in 1968, influential British archaeologist Grahame Clark wrote of Australian stone artifacts: “The crude and rather colourless nature of this industry may serve to remind us that the original Australian aborigines [sic] issued from one of the most unenterprising parts of the late Pleistocene world.”

No one would be quite so blunt today. Yet there is a continued unease with the early stone artifact record from Australia, the simplicity of which is often still construed as evidence of a deficiency in early Australian cultures.

But such an interpretation points to a persistent bias about what constitutes the “normal” course of human development. The ground-edge ax flake discovered in the Kimberley region challenges these assumptions.

Ground-edge ax - European perceptions of Indigenous Australians from the 17th century onwards shaped how Westerners viewed human development in Australia and the surrounding region.

European perceptions of Indigenous Australians from the 17th century onwards shaped how Westerners viewed human development in Australia and the surrounding region. Quibik/Wikimedia Commons

As Australian cultural geographer Kay Anderson eloquently discusses in her 2007 book Race and the Crisis of Humanism, there is a long tradition in Western thought of placing Indigenous Australians at the bottom of evolutionary and historical schemes. Archaeology’s biases with regard to assessing humanity’s deep past emerged out of European Enlightenment notions of what it meant to be human. One of the first Europeans to describe Indigenous Australians was explorer and author William Dampier in the late 17th century. Dampier described Indigenous Australians as the “miserablest” people in the world, which Anderson explains was mostly based on his assessment that they had failed to rise above nature (such as by transforming the land through agriculture).

Clearly, things have changed since the 17th century. Openly racist positions like Dampier’s do not have a place in contemporary scholarship on this topic. Nonetheless, ongoing biases continue to affect how scholars position Australia and Southeast Asia in the story of human origins.

The tiny ax fragment from the Kimberley region is a reminder that the stories we tell about human origins are key to how we understand the history of our entire species. The fragment fits into a growing body of evidence—including that of rock art in Sulawesi, Indonesia, and highly skilled deep-sea fishing off the coast of East Timor—demonstrating that the first colonizers of Australia and Southeast Asia were developing expressions of human flexibility and creativity earlier than previously assumed. The archaeological evidence from this region also shows expressions of complex human behaviors that are unique for the time period.

The long-standing idea of a “normal” course of human development is deeply flawed and should be rejected outright. The story of human origins has to be an inclusive global story that does not privilege the history of one or two geographical regions over all others.

Archaeology / / /

Republish With License
  • George Taylor

    To even suggest that a “normalised” benchmark exists in reference to hominin or any other species evolution biologically or culturally is quite absurd … this implies a teleological approach to cultural dynamics which cannot be the case. I thought archaeology had moved on from such silliness when processual archaeology surpassed the normative approach in the 1950s-60s. what archaeologists should be looking at in regard to this Australian find is how its seemingly punctuated occurence fits in with environmental/social circumstances that may have contributed to its introduction.

  • Gillian Rowe

    In my (possibly flawed) understanding of ecological evolution, change is precipitated by challenge, if the extant tools were fit for (existing) circumstance then change was not needed. This is not stagnation and should not be interpreted as such

    • hhilton

      It sounds flawed doesn’; Cjallenge and Change. Who is not challenged.t it. In fact it sounds downright silly. The fact is the indigenous here were technicality impoverished, socially in small groups and by our general judgment largely undeveloped. . Why this is I do not know. If comparisons are to be made as they are then leaving aside Europe and Asia one can compare with New Guinea and Indonesia perhaps from where they came originally. An occasional find of an old ax does not mean it was the ‘first in the world’ but that it was a fortunate find. One would expect that all peoples from a similar age had fire, axes, cooking etc.The wombat in the room is why did our indigenous seem to do so little in these regards with the time they had an a pretty reasonable climate.

      • Paul Desney

        not true. you are just repeating the propaganda. it was in the british interest to diminish the indigenous people of australia to enable the genocide. read bruce pascoe and bill gamage, james dawson…..if you are interested in the subject you should educate yourself and not just repeat the prejudicial racist view.

        • rosross

          The British did not diminish Aborigines, they simply recognised them as being at a low level of development. One can understand that violent misogyny, cannibalism, infanticide, living under twigs and foraging for food would be seen by the British, and by most people alive at the time, as a primitive way of life, which they had left behind thousands of years earlier.

          They did not have a policy of genocide, but in fact, tried to do what we still attempt in the Third World today, to bring them into the then modern age. But you would have to do real research into real records to know that.

          Bruce Pascoe, Bill Gammage etc., deal in fantasies rather than facts. I mean, for heaven’s sake, when you refer to fishing nets as aquaculture you are seriously deluded. Aborigines had fishing nets and so did all other human beings at the same level of development. So what?

  • omero rossi

    ” La storia delle origini umane deve essere una storia globale inclusivo che non privilegia la storia di una o due regioni geografiche su tutti gli altri.” Salve, le sue ragioni sono condivisibili, Da molti anni si scrive “noi pensiamo che..”,ma poi si legge e impone l’ipotesi Darwiniana come fosse la realtà, e tutto ciò solo per soldi….Qui in Italia, i primi manufatti-strumenti sono presenti dall’Era Miocenica consecutivamente fino alla fine dell’età della pietra.Qui l’uomo già allora aveva le stesse capacità cognitive che abbiamo oggi. Dice Ian Tattersall “l’unico modo che abbiamo per capire le capacità cognitive dei primi uomini è osservare i suoi strumenti, che NON sono MAI casuali”.Ed è proprio così. Per dimostrarle la mia ricerca,Le faccio una domanda ” secondo Lei,cosa facevano gli uomini prima di conoscere la selce e le sue proprietà intrinseche ?Se cortesemente mi risponderà….. ( [email protected] ).

  • T.G. Bissett

    I have no problem with the idea that indigenous Australians devised ground stone technology as early as Hiscock et al. report, but I do have a serious problem with the original paper, with respect to the reporting (or lack thereof) of chronological information. A claim of the oldest in the world” for any archaeological object implies that the dating of that object is impeccable. In the published journal article, Hiscock et al. mention an age range of 48,875–43,941 cal BP (p. 5) on a fragment of charcoal recovered from the same unit as the deepest axe fragment. And that’s all the chronological information provided.

    For such a claim, multiple fragments of charcoal should have been submitted for dating after having been identified by a paleoethnobotanist. Datable materials from above and below the deposit in which the axe fragment was recovered should also have been submitted for dating. The suite of radiocarbon dates should have been reported in the article and included (at absolute minimum): the measured radiocarbon age, the calibrated weighted mean, and the 1-sigma and 2-sigma calibrated ranges.

    A reader should not have to go digging for this information. It should exist, and it should be presented front and center. But, even if the above were provided in the original article (or even a citation were provided for an article in which these data were presented elsewhere), the problem of radiocarbon dating of materials as ancient as the authors report is also an issue. The minute amounts of undecayed c-14 remaining in materials at or near the age of 50,000 years is so small that only in recent years has technology developed that it’s even possible to detect such trace amounts. Radiocarbon dates in excess of 45,000 years are dealing with quantities of c-14 less than 0.4 percent of the original amount in the sample.

    It may well be that Hiscock and his team *have* uncovered evidence of the most ancient ground stone axe in the world. But with the problems of minimal dating and reporting, and the methodological issues of radiocarbon dating materials approaching 50K years old, the claim around which Hiscock et al base their article should have gotten it soundly rejected for publication. They need much better dating of the context before such a claim can be taken seriously.

  • Aussiefriend

    There is another lens through which this ‘history’ can be interpreted. All people, incluing the Aboriginal people of Australia, migrated through the earth from the Middle East where their ancestors disembarked from the Ark after the global Flood about 4,500 years ago. That means, of course, that the 40,000-year dates need to be recalibrated. The following article describes that same sort evidence for the migration and settlement of the Maori people of New Zealand. It requires a major paradygm shift in thinking, one that affects a multitude of disciplines, including geology, anthropology, biology, etc.

    • Alan Cizzio

      It doesn’t require a “paradigm shift” it requires people believe in nonsense based on no evidence whatsoever. Your belief in

      myth and superstition has destroyed your ability to actually understand the world around you.

    • Greg

      Fairy Tales about the Ark, lets keep it real.

    • Aussiefriend

      Alan Cizzio and Greg. I can’t help but be impressed by the amazing evidence you present, your impressive logic, your argumentation, and the links that you provide. The only thing you could could possibly do to improve would be to become a little informed on the issue.

    • Pierre Savoie

      Did Noah sail off to Australia to collect kangaroos, took them back onto the Ark in the Middle East, and when the rain was safely over, did the kangaroos dutifully hop and swim back to Australia and pick up the bones of their fallen comrades along the way so as to leave no evidence of their presence between the Middle East and there?

      You Creationists could not think your way out of a wet paper bag. You survive by fitting the facts to the theory, the opposite of what a scientist does, and you ignore massive amounts of evidence contrary to your theory and do not reason out the implications of your theories.

    • Miss.Bridgit

      I find the *ARK* a very hard ask..As an aside I always thought true Australian Aboriginal people were much closer in physical characteristics to the Papua/ New Guinean people, so maybe they stopped off there on their way to what is Australia…Who really knows it is all guesswork?

  • Peter Grant

    Very exciting. However, considering the scarcity of such relics, independent invention of this technology by the first Australians is one possible explanation. Another is that the technology already existed in ancient communities before the First Australian arrived on the continent but evidence has not yet been found.

  • Đale Hâttön

    One thing that Australia lacked that many other continents and countries had, beasts of burden, there’s no point inventing a wheel to move something when you have nothing to move the wheel with!

    • rosross

      Well, other peoples managed to use wheels to ground grain and seeds???? They also used wheels for hand-drawn carts????? Let’s face it, Aborigines for whatever reason, in 1788 were still at a level of development most other human beings had left behind thousands of years earlier. Who knows why? But it was the reality.

  • Peter Wiseman

    I’ll take my ancestors “rather than only flaking it” flint tools over a dull edged ground tool any day.