Successful Planning Proposal
National Endowment for the Humanities
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology
Lisa
Jo Rudy, Grant Writer
Lithics –– stone tools –– provide a unique
connection to humanity’s ancient past. Unlike
any other type of human artifact, lithics represent an unbroken thread binding
the very beginnings of human technology to the “high technology” of the
present and the future. Unbreakable
and rich in layered meanings, lithics will provide a focus for a new traveling
exhibit to be created by the University of Pennsylvania’s Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology: “From Stone Tools to Silicon Chips: The Legacy
of Human Lithic Technology” This
new exhibition will be the first to use interactive exhibition techniques,
including digital technology, to help visitors forge a conceptual bridge between
the modern industrialized world and
world of our most remote antiquity. The
University of Pennsylvania requests a grant of $__ to plan for the
implementation of the exhibit and its supporting educational materials, programs
and events.
Some two-and-a-half
million years ago, the first appearance of stone tools marked a great cognitive
leap that distinguished groups of hominids in the African landscape as
possessors of what can be described as the first rudimentary indications of
cultural behavior. This cognitive leap, which recognized the cutting potential
of stone and how to access this potential, separates human ancestors from
evolutionary lines that led to great apes such as chimpanzees.
These early stone
implements may look unsophisticated by modern standards, but they are a record
of mental processes shared across this vast passage of time, and they create the
link between us and our most distant cultural past. The dawn of time in cultural
terms is thus a time when human ancestors learned to manipulate their
circumstances to their increased advantage. This trait, of course, has
characterized all human culture ever since.
Stone tools are
more than simple means to an end: they are also expressions of the art and
culture of a people and a time. “Eccentrics”
from the civilizations of Mesoamerica, leaf-shaped, extremely thin bifaces from
the Paleolithic of France or the ancient Puebloan period of the American
Southwest, large, bifacial spearheads with specialized hafting removals from the
early settlement of the Americas some 12,000 years ago, or large, unifacially
flaked knives from the Predynastic period in Egypt are just some of the many
objects that can be viewed as possessing special meaning both within their
specific cultural contexts and to us today.
Just as ancient
stone tools expressed far more than their own utility so, too, do today’s
technological artifacts –– time pieces, cars, cooking tools, and even
computers. In fact, many of the
fundamental concepts of chipped lithics are those widely used in modern society:
interchangeable parts, miniaturization, portability, economization of resources,
etc.
Museums are
uniquely positioned to encourage the general public to explore and discover how
ancient people lived and how our contemporary world builds on and reflects
ancient ways of thinking and doing. Museums
house and use extensive collections of relevant, real objects –– and, at the
same time, museums employ docents, storytellers, and staff experts to bring the
stories behind those collections to life. By
combining actual artifacts with interactive devices and research–based
presentations, museum educators are able to help visitors separate the
“fictional past” (a la Indiana Jones) from the fascinating truth of our
shared human heritage.
Everyone has heard
of the Stone Age, and many people have their own collections of prehistoric
arrowheads. But few people
understand how these implements were made and what they can tell us about the
past. Most people do not realize,
in fact, that stone tools provide the primary source of evidence for 99% of the
human past. To our knowledge
there has never been a major exhibition dedicated to this subject and yet the
legacy of the Stone Age is something that is a significant part of our life
today.
The overall goal of this project is to introduce a general audience to the rich variety of stone tools, including how they are manufactured and used, and what they tell us about the evolution and development of our species. To achieve this goal, the project directors plan:
A planning process, already begun, will involve curators, scholars, educators, writers and marketers. An advisory committee of humanities scholars will take an active role in the development of the exhibition and its corollary educational materials. An evaluator will be involved, from the planning phase forward, in crafting the exhibition.
The immense archaeological
record that represents the history and prehistory of humanity consists of
cultural materials fashioned to serve the needs of social groups through time,
as people throughout the ages have sought solutions to everyday problems. One of
the most enduring of these cultural materials, because of their durability,
longevity, and ubiquity, are stone artifacts (lithics). Stone tools are first
found in the Oldowan Tradition in Africa some 2.5 million years ago, and then in
later Paleolithic hunting and gathering settlements, in Neolithic and New World
farming contexts, and as both everyday and ritual items in the civilizations of
the Old and New Worlds. They were a major component of the toolkit used by
archaic people who first met the challenges of the northern latitudes of Eurasia
more than a million years ago as ancient groups began to migrate out of Africa,
by inadvertent colonizers who crossed the Beringia to the uninhabited Americas
some 15,000 years ago, and by intrepid travelers who sailed across the vast
Pacific to settle its many islands, a migration still underway as recently as
1,600 years ago. Despite their importance to nearly every cultural group
throughout time, however, the rarity of stone tools in everyday life today has
meant that most people do not recognize that stone tools have much to contribute
to our understanding of our rich history and of our modern technological
approaches to solutions to the problems of local and global survival.
The appearance of the
first stone tools in Africa is the beginning of our tangible evidence of hominid
manipulation of food niches and habitat. The cognitive recognition by these
early human ancestors of the value of a sharp cutting edge and the technical
ability to repeatedly produce simple flakes with sharp edges from selected
nodules of lithic raw material allowed them
access to new food sources such as meat from medium to large sized
animals (e.g., bovids and herbivores). Hominid
teeth are not specialized for meat–eating.
The development of stone tools made it possible, for the first time, for
early humans to effectively cut meat off the bones or to break open bones to
obtain nutrient–rich marrow. Examples
of early stone implements being used for butchering have been found at African
archaeological sites such as several locales in Olduvai Gorge.
There, cut marks and breakage patterns on bones attest to the use of
sharp stone flakes and nodules which were used to scrape meat off the bones,
slice through muscle and tendons or break bones to obtain marrow.
Portable stone tools
permitted hominids to choose whether they processed carcasses for meat at the
site of death or removed carcass segments and transported them to locales where
relative safety from predators could be assured. The use of these simple stone
tools also extended the opportunities for obtaining animal protein because
retrieving bone marrow is possible even when other animals have fed upon the
carcass. Non-hyaenid predators and scavengers are efficient flesh-eaters but are
unable to access bone marrow due to various physical limitations (e.g., weak
jaws, dental structure).
Early stone tools from
several million years ago thus exemplify three basic principles of all later
human cultural strategies: (1) innovation; (2) manipulation of the natural
world; and (3) flexibility. Standing
in contrast to this are studies of the capabilities of our nearest living
relatives, the chimpanzees. For example, the work by Nicholas Toth and
colleagues has shown that bonobos are capable of grasping the concept of a sharp
cutting edge when taught by humans using a reward system. The flint knapping
efforts on the part of these primates, who are taught how to flint knap by human
instructors, however, rarely yields stone artifacts such as those recognized as
early stone tools in the archaeological record. One component of this exhibition
will focus on the cognitive and adaptive significance of the appearance of stone
tools in the cultural record.
Many of the challenges
that faced Stone Age humans (Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo
erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Home sapiens sapiens) are similar to
those that confront the modern industrialized world.
Today’s solutions may be seen as modern
versions of ancient solutions. For example, the concept of recycling material in
order to conserve scarce resources is common throughout human history and can be
traced back in time to the manufacture of hand axes in the Lower Paleolithic
between about 1.8 million years ago to 250,000 years ago. Studies of hand axe
morphology have shown that there is a progression of change from pointed to more
ovate versions with continued use and resharpening of this stone artifact. In
situations where stone raw material was abundant or easily available,
archaeological sites (e.g., Cagny la Garenne, France) reflect higher frequencies
of the least reduced version (pointed), whereas inhabitants of regions where
useable stone was scarce recycled their hand axes by resharpening them and sites
with higher frequencies of ovate hand axes reflect this process (e.g.,
Gouzeaucourt, France).
Another example can be
found in Middle Paleolithic contexts dating to between 250,000 and 40,000 years
ago. In this instance, the specific stone artifact is the side-scraper.
Extensive research on scraper form, which in the Bordian typology constitutes 23
individual scraper types (including end-scrapers and other rare forms), has
demonstrated that much of the variability in side-scraper morphology can be
explained as the resharpening process used by Neanderthals and related archaic
humans who sought to maximize the use-life of individual stone tools under
conditions of stone raw material scarcity. Flakes can be initially used to
scrape with little to no modification to an existing edge. As the piece dulls,
however, retouch is added to one edge to refurbish it. When lithic raw material
is abundant, then further dulling of the tool leads to its discard, and a new
unmodified flake is selected for use. Under conditions of scarcity, however, the
single edge is continuously resharpened until this is no longer possible and the
person using the tool must add a second edge, transforming the tool into a
double side-scraper. Continued resharpening in this case can lead to the
convergence of the two retouched edges and the formation of a convergent
side-scraper. Sites with high frequencies of single side-scrapers, such as Combe
Capelle in France, represent contexts where human groups did not experience
lithic raw material scarcity, while sites such as Warwasi in Iran or Combe
Grenal in France, which have greater numbers of double and convergent or
transverse side-scrapers, reflect heavy emphasis on recycling through
resharpening.
Examples such as these are
not confined to the earliest reaches of time, but can also be found among much
later groups of humans, for instance, just prior to Western Contact (late A.D.
1700s) in Hawai’i. Studies here have shown that late pre-Contact Hawaiians
recycled stone adzes made from basalt by taking the worn-out adzes and reworking
these to create smaller, adzes. In at least three sites in North Halawa Valley,
O’ahu, spatial distribution of basalt adzes, adze preforms, and other flake
debitage consistently mimics the spatial distribution of artifacts associated
with adze preform manufacture at quarry sites such as the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry
on the island of Hawai’i. In the case of North Halawa Valley, however, the
presence of large quantities of flakes with polish,
removed from existing polished adzes when modifying the original adze,
demonstrate that old adzes were used as the source material to manufacture new
ones. The causes for this process of recycling could be related to scarcity of
raw material but more likely are the result of social constraints on access to
quarry sites that developed as Hawaiian chiefdoms moved in the direction of
state formation. This exhibition will present for the first time the several
alternative ways of explaining stone tool variability and link these
interpretations to the processes that humans use to solve problems.
Both modern and ancient
humans also engaged in designing techniques that address issues of portability
and replacement parts. Ease of transport, for example, can be facilitated
through miniaturization. This practice is seen in the archaeological record with
the widespread appearance of microliths (smaller stone tools and artifacts) in
Eurasia beginning about 40,000 years ago. It also has analogues in the Arctic
Small Tool Tradition which accompanied later arrivals to the Americas in the
past three-and-a-half to four thousand years. Smaller stone tools require less
edge to accomplish a task (economical
use of the resource).Smaller size also lends itself to the creation of composite
tools in which relatively small damaged parts may be easily removed and
replaced.
Well-preserved occurrences
of composite tools featuring hafted microliths that can be easily interchanged
when broken include Natufian sickles from Wadi Hammeh 27 in Jordan and el Wad in
Israel from 12,500 to 11,000 years ago, Mesolithic arrows from Europe in the
period after 8,000 years ago, a 6,000 year-old harvesting knife from northern
Africa, arrows from Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt, and ethnographic
arrows from the !Kung San of southern Africa (using glass as a substitute for
flint, both of which are silica-based in their composition). Microliths in these
examples serve as arrow heads, as arrow barbs, and as sickle elements.
Additionally, microliths are known ethnographically to have been used as
interchangeable components of grating boards for root, fruit, and nut processing
in South America, Africa, and southeast Asia. The exhibition will highlight how
concepts used to create microliths form the fundamental basis of many aspects of
modern high technology.
Practical use of stone, in
this case, flint, as an important part of the economy continued to be a feature
of one segment of recent society well into the Industrial Age. Specifically,,
flintlock firearms required a mechanism to create a spark to ignite the
gunpowder. This was accomplished by using Stone Age flint knapping techniques to
manufacture gunflints, which could be inserted into the cock and then struck
against the frizzen (or battery) to create sparks. The production of these stone
tools was a major occupation in France and England in the late 1600s to early
1800s, and distinctive gunflint morphologies were characteristic, for example,
of British-made versus French-made gunflints. This type of manufacture of stone
tools survived at Brandon in England through the end of the twentieth century.
In all of the cases discussed above, the design and use of stone tools
illustrates the primacy of knappable stone as a culturally valuable resource
during the course of human history, one which was used to solve the many
problems associated with human manipulation of the natural world.
Stone tools were not,
however, always intended as functional implements in the sense of utilitarian
use. They could, and did, serve additional roles related to social meaning, such
as status or ritual, within a variety of cultural contexts. They can
additionally be viewed as objects conveying aesthetics, craftsmanship, and even
art. For example, researchers have gained important insights into the symbolic
use of stone artifacts through observation of and discussion with Australian
aboriginal groups. Stone tools in this context can be representational elements
in complex systems that impart meanings such as “maleness” or linkage to
spiritual power emanating from the ancestors. In the archaeological record,
stone implements such as “eccentrics” from the Mayan civilization of
Mesoamerica between about A.D. 200 and 900 (e.g., Altar de Sacrificios,
Guatemala, and Altun Ha, Belize) are found in caches likely to have been temple
offerings or they may represent badges of office and thus serve as status
markers in complex society. Some have even been chipped into effigies
reminiscent of motifs found on stelae.
Another instance of
probable symbolic significance of stone tools can be found in the unifacially
and finely flaked Gerzean knives from the Pre-Dynastic period in Egypt. These
were produced by lithic craftsmen who obtained chert from mines and left
workshop evidence of production sites where these knives were manufactured.
Although it is possible that the Gerzean knives were used for butchering tasks,
their fragility and their placement in burials suggests instead that they served
a more esoteric role in society, one akin to that of “eccentrics” in Mayan
society as prestige or ritual markers. Their aesthetically pleasing appearance
has even led art historians in recent times to illustrate hafted versions of
these knives.
In the cultures of less
politically complex societies than the Maya and the Pre-Dynastic period
Egyptians, there are additional instances of finely flaked, often
extraordinarily large and fragile bifaces. These are reminders that many human
groups produced objects of fine workmanship, although we do not always know if
these types of stone tools were emblems of status, ritual, or wealth. Examples
include Upper Paleolithic Solutrean laurel leaf points from France (about 21,000
to 17,000 years ago), Puebloan bifaces from Grasshopper Pueblo and other sites
in Arizona (ca A.D. 700 to 1100), and some of the many fluted Clovis points
characteristic of PaleoIndian populations in North America some 12,000 years
ago. All of the items described
above required extraordinary skill and craftsmanship in flint knapping. One
objective of this exhibition is to engage the audience in an appreciation of
stone artifacts in their roles as art and symbol within specific cultural
contexts, much as modern art can signify similar themes.
From the beginnings of
technology to the development of artistic expression, lithics played a uniquely
significant role in the story of human evolution. More than that, many scholars believe that this new
technology was in itself responsible for initiating
adaptations, such as changes to the size and function of the brain and
the expansion of range and abilities, that ultimately led to modern humans.
In many ways, therefore, an understanding of lithics helps us to
understand what it is to be human and how we came to be.
The exhibition will bring
together for the first time a thematically integrated, interactive consideration
of chipped stone artifacts from a diversity of places and times, to explore
human heritage as it is represented by these artifacts. The exhibit will focus
on major concepts fundamental to human societies everywhere in their quest to
modify the natural world around them and to meet the challenges of resource
availability and effective use of resources. The exhibition thus differs
substantially from existing presentations of lithics in that these latter are
most often static productions of types of tools largely divorced from
interpretations of their meaning, their cultural role, and their significance to
a modern world where few living people still make and use stone tools.
Accompanying the exhibition will be a catalogue, the contents of which will
explicate the many messages of stone tools in the fields of archaeology,
history, art, and technology.
“From Stone Tools to Silicon Chips” will be the first exhibition to present lithics in their full historic and cultural context. As a result, this interactive, hands–on presentation will provide middle school, high school, college and adult visitors with a unique opportunity to explore the relationship between stone tools and their makers and modern technology and its creators. Developmental relationships with the Smithsonian Institution and the Field Museum will enrich the exhibit through loaned artifacts and consulting support. In addition, both of these major museums have agreed to present the exhibit as it travels across the country.
In order to make the exhibit accessible to the broadest possible audience, it will be designed in a modular format. Thus, while larger museums will be able to present the exhibit in its entirety, smaller museums and other public venues will be able to present self–contained modules which will include artifacts, hands–on devices, computer interactives and exhibit labels.
When complete, this project will include several elements:
Exhibition: From Stone Tools to Silicon Chips ––
a Traveling Exhibit
Intellectual Themes and Organization of Project
Presentations of
geofacts (natural stones with interesting shapes often assumed to be cultural
artifacts by the public), eoliths (“dawn stones”) collected by scientists of
the nineteenth century, and actual stone tools from around the world will
challenge visitors to develop an understanding of what lithics are, where they
are found, and how they can be recognized.
A timeline, including stone artifacts, will graphically depicts the vast
span of human history that is characterized by the role of stone tools in
everyday life.
Replicas of many of
the objects in the display will be presented for visitors to pick up, examine,
and “fit to the hand.” Touch
screen technology will allow visitors to explore possible interpretations of
each tool. Links from these interpretations will be made to the other sections
of the exhibition to allow each visitor opportunities to more fully explore
connections between ancient and contemporary technologies
The creation of stone tools has been a part of human craftsmanship through the ages, though it is a technology that has largely died out today.. This section of the exhibition will feature stone artifacts of modern manufacture, such as an authentic Brandon flintknapper’s kit (used for making gunflints in the 19th century) and stone tools made by today’s flintknappers to try to rediscover lost techniques. Visitors will be able to choose from a variety of stone tools and see short video clips of that tool being made by a flintknapper. It is anticipated that opening day activities for the exhibit will include live demonstrations of flint knapping.
In addition to watching the process of flint knapping,
visitors will be introduced to some of the scientific methods used to derive the
purpose and use of various ancient tools. Visitors
will be invited to emulate scientists by studying
the tools with microscopes, and replicating hypothesized tasks.
Labels and videos will allow visitors to watch as scientists conduct
blind tests for accuracy, such as gauging the effectiveness of stone points by
testing different methods of propulsion (e.g., javelin toss, spear thrower, and
bow and arrow), butchering an animal, tanning an animal hide, cutting and
harvesting stands of cereals, shaping a wooden haft, and so forth. Touch screen
displays, short video clips, and other media will facilitate the visitor’s
experience of this portion of the exhibit, while linking the audience to the
actual stone artifacts in the other sections of the exhibition.
Artifacts selected
for this section of the exhibit will include objects created as art and as
illustrations of cultural myths and stories, and will be presented much as
sculpture and paintings are presented in art museums. The stone artifacts will be contextualized through graphic
panels and other interpretive techniques to present their role in the societies
that produced them.
Artifacts of
exceptional craftsmanship that are available in the University Museum
collections include “eccentrics” (chipped stone artifacts in unusual shapes)
from the civilizations of Mesoamerica, North American PaleoIndian Clovis points,
Paleolithic Solutrean laurel leaf points from France, Gerzean knives from the
Predynastic period of Egypt, and flint daggers made to resemble early bronze
daggers from the Neolithic period in Denmark, among many others.
Real objects and
graphic panels will allow visitors to discover that contemporary technologies
are also artistic interpretations that tell stories about the people who create
them. Possible artifacts to explore
include i–Mac computers, timepieces, the Delorean car, highly designed
furniture and home décor, etc.
Touch screen
technology and complementary artifacts, labels, maps and graphics will allow
visitors to explore individual artifacts, artists, techniques and cultures more
deeply.
Exhibit Section 4: Modern Technology Concepts from Ancient Stone Tools
The last section of the exhibition will leave visitors with the message that the fundamental building blocks of “high tech” in the modern world are presaged in ancient stone technology, and include miniaturization, interchangeable components, portability and recycling. In fact, flint is composed of silica, the major constituent of silicon chips used in computers. Graphic presentations will show precisely how the same techniques that were applied by early human beings are still in use today.
In addition, visitors will be presented with high tech examinations of how the brain works during the manufacture of stone tools; how the human hand functions during the process of flint knapping and more. They will discover that the same mental and physical skills required to create stone tools – some over two million years old –– are used today to create items as varied as construction tools, musical instruments and dishware.
The main products of the K-12 education public programming—teachers’ packets, teachers workshops, guided tours of the exhibit, replica stone tool kits, and flint knapping demonstrations—are all designed to be an integral part of the exhibit as it travels to other venues across the country. In the case of the flint knapping demonstrations, our consultant (Dr. John Whittaker), will help us develop a list of local flintknappers in the areas where the exhibit will travel. These individuals will be contacted to participate when the exhibit opens in their region. Specific programs planned include:
·
The
Education Department at the University Museum, in consultation with teachers and
curators, will develop teachers’ packets that include lesson plans based on
themes from the exhibition.
·
A series
of workshops for teachers in the tri-state area (Pennsylvania, new Jersey, and
Delaware) on selected topics from the exhibit will help prepare teachers to
expertly guide their classes on tours of the exhibition during school visits, as well as serve as a
basis for augmenting class lesson plans.
·
Replica
kits of some of the stone artifacts on display will be lent to schools as needed
and will serve as a significant visual and hands-on aid for children engaged in
investigating topics covered by the exhibition.
·
School
children from the local areas will be invited to the University Museum for
demonstrations of flint knapping and related crafts
Supporting
Programs for Adults and Families
Under
the auspices of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, graduate students and
University Museum curators and staff speak at community centers, libraries, and
similar venues throughout Pennsylvania. Approximately 200 presentations occur
each year, reaching about 11,000 to 15,000 people. Speakers from the University
Museum and its consultants on this exhibit will present lectures, demonstrations
and programs on site. Similar
programs will be encouraged and supported at other exhibit venues.
Software,
to be developed for the galleries of the exhibit, will be enhanced and placed
online through the museum’s award–winning Website.
Activities and teacher materials will also be made available for
download.
The
mission of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, through its research, collections, and dissemination of knowledge,
is to advance understanding of the world's cultural heritage.
Since
its original construction in 1899 as an outgrowth of the University
Archaeological Association, the Museum has grown into a complex of five
buildings totaling over 265,000 gross square feet. Since its first expedition to Babylon, the Museum has
conducted over 350 archaeological and anthropological expeditions on every
inhabited continent. The fact that so many of the Museum's holdings came from
its own expeditions—and those that were purchased or gifted came with
excellent documentation—is the foundation for the Museum’s reputation for
well-documented collections that explain their cultural context. The Museum’s
collections now include approximately one million objects from every inhabited
continent.
Two of the most
important missions of the Museum are research and public education. Currently,
35 Museum researchers, curators and staff are engaged in field research and
analysis in countries around the world. Museum scholars communicate the results
of their research to the broader public through clear, accessible publications
and exhibits. These activities directly fulfill the Museum's exhibition
philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of the use of collections for
educational purposes.
Through its active exhibit schedule, the Museum presents a variety of artifacts of great aesthetic value in archaeological, anthropological or historical contexts. The Museum's superlative collections, curatorial expertise, and a talented staff of in-house exhibition designers, conservators, educators, and interpretive programming professionals all contribute to the production of high-quality exhibits. The Museum is committed to displaying its collections through well-designed and accessible exhibits that convey meaning to audiences of diverse ages, backgrounds, and levels of previous knowledge. To reach an even broader audience, the Museum has expanded its Traveling Exhibitions Program, and alternates gallery reinstallations with the production of traveling exhibits intended for exhibit both at the Museum and to audiences across the country.
In 1999, the Museum recorded more than 97,000 on-site
visitors, over 587,000 off-site visitors through its traveling exhibits and
outreach programs, and 10,400,000 visits to its website. The figures for 2000
show nearly 104,400 on-site visitors, over 301,000 off-site visitors, and
15,600,000 website visits.
The project’s
curators include:
DEBORAH OLSZEWSKI,
Research Associate at the University Museum, received her Ph.D. in Anthropology
from the University of Arizona in 1984. After receiving her Ph.D., Dr. Olszewski
taught at several universities in Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia, and Texas. Most
recently she was Chair of Anthropology at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu,
Hawai’i. Dr. Olszewski specializes in the study of chipped stone artifacts of
the Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Old World and has also worked extensively
in the American Southwest and Hawai’i. She will oversee the planning and
implementation of the project and contribute to the catalogue, working in
conjunction with Dr. Dibble.
HAROLD DIBBLE,
Professor of Anthropology, Curator of the European Section at the University
Museum, and Deputy Director for Curatorial Affairs, received his Ph.D. in
Anthropology from the University of Arizona in 1980. Upon completion of his
Ph.D., he worked at the Arizona State Museum and then took a position at the
University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Dibble is an acknowledged expert in lithic
studies of the Paleolithic and in computer applications. He has worked
extensively in Western Europe and the Middle East. Dr. Dibble will share
planning, implementation, and catalogue writing responsibilities with Dr.
Olszewski.
Additional
University Museum staff will include exhibit designers and fabricators,
educators, Web/interactive developers, marketers, fundraisers, writer/editors,
and an exhibition evaluator..
Exhibition Advisory
Committee
Mr. Mark Davis,
video and interactive displays, NOVA producer; MDTV Productions.
Dr. Shannon
McPherron, archaeologist, Eurasian Lower Paleolithic, lithics specialist,
computer applications; University of North Carolina-Greensboro.
Dr. Robert Sharer,
Curator of the American Section, archaeologist, Mesoamerica; University of
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Dr. David
Silverman, Curator of the Egyptian Section, Egyptologist; University of
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Dr. Michael Shot,
archaeologist, the Americas, lithics specialist; University of Northern Iowa.
Dr. Nicholas Toth,
archaeologist, African Lower Paleolithic, lithics specialist; University of
Indiana.
Dr. John Whittaker,
archaeologist, North America, lithics specialist, flintknapper; Grinnell
College, Iowa.
Planning for this
project has already begun, and will continue through September,
2003. Implementation will
begin in late2003, and the exhibit is expected to open no later than [date]
2004. After debuting at the University Museum, the exhibit will travel to other
venues, such as [to be decided]. Because
the exhibit will be designed in modular form, selected elements may be presented
in smaller venues.
As of the end of
2001, the advisory committee and the University of Pennsylvania staff have
already begun preliminary meetings and exchanges of ideas about this exhibition.
. In the six months (February through July 2002) prior to the start of the
planning grant period (August 2002), the project directors, Drs. Olszewski and
Dibble will continue discussions and begin exhibit planning in collaboration
with members of the exhibition advisory group. The objectives of this period are
two-fold. First, aspects of the artifacts and themes selected for the exhibition
will be compiled for use by a project evaluator. Informal feedback will also be
solicited from undergraduate and graduate students at the University of
Pennsylvania. Second, the exhibition catalogue topics will be selected and
preliminary assignments to Drs. Olszewski and Dibble and to some members of the
advisory committee will be made.
August, 2002–
September, 2003
Formal meeting of
the exhibition advisory board is held to discuss themes and assess the stone
artifacts selected for display. Results of this meeting will be used by the
project evaluator to gather feedback on the exhibition from the public.
Olszewski, Dibble,
Whittaker, and Davis attend Fort Osage flintknappers “knap-in” to gather
information, shoot video of flintknappers, and arrange for a variety of replica
stone artifacts that can be used in teaching kits and exhibit interactives.
Olszewski and Dibble, working with University Museum exhibits staff, begin
development of label copy, text panels, and exhibit design, based in part on
results of the project evaluation in August. University Museum staff begin work
on educational programs and on catalogue design.
Work on label copy,
text panels, and exhibit design continues. As-needed discussions continue with
exhibition advisory group members. A second round of project evaluation occurs.
Davis submits
mock-ups of selected display interactives. Second meeting of the exhibition
advisory group held to finalize plans for exhibition floor plan and interactive
elements and assess work-to-date on label copy, text panels, exhibit design, and
interactive components. Olszewski and Dibble begin work on the implementation
grant.
December 2002
Davis submits
sample video components and storyboards. Exhibition contents, label copy design
and text for selected label panels are drafted. As-needed discussions continue
with exhibition advisory group members.
Catalogue
contributors submit their manuscripts to Olszewski and Dibble. Copy editing of
manuscripts by University Museum staff begins.
Olszewski and
Dibble submit NEH Implementation Grant proposal.
Work continues on (1) development of labels; (2) formative evaluation of
hands–on interactive devices and labels; (3) development of educational kits
and gallery tour concepts; (4) development of Web concepts, design and copy.
Edited manuscripts
are returned to authors for final approval.
Author approved
manuscripts returned to University Museum copy editing staff for final editing.
September 2003
Final editing for
publication completed and submitted to the University Museum Press.
Final plans are in place for implementation process, including exhibit
fabrication, label editing/layout/production, production of computer
interactives, development of programming schedules, etc.
Implementation process begins.
References:
Aldred, C. 1988. Egypt
to the End of the Old Kingdom. London: Thames and Hudson.
Blumenschine, R.J.
1987. Characteristics of an Early Hominid Scavenging Niche. Current
Anthropology 28(4): 383-407.
Bunn, H.T. and E.
M. Kroll. 1986. Systematic Butchery by Plio-Pleistocene Hominids at Olduvai
Gorge, Tanzania. Current Anthropology 27(5): 431-452.
Camps-Fabrer,
H. 1966. Matière et Art Mobilier dans la Préhistoire Nort-Africaine et
Saharienne. Mémoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques, Préistoriques
et Ethnographiques (Algérie), No. V.
Clark, J.D.
1975-1977. Interpretations of Prehistoric Technology from Ancient Egyptian and
Other Sources. Part II: Prehistoric Arrow Forms in Africa as Shown by Surviving
Examples of the traditional Arrows of the San Bushmen. Paléorient 3:
127-150.
Clark, J.D., J.L.
Phillips, and P.S. Staley. 1974. Interpretations of Prehistoric Technology from
Ancient Egyptian and Other Sources. Part 1: Ancient Egyptian Bows and Arrows and
Their Relevance for African Prehistory. Paléorient 2(2): 323-388.
Clarke, D. 1976.
Mesolithic Europe: The Economic Basis. In Problems in Economic and Social
Archaeology, eds. G. de G. Sieveking, I. H. Longworth, and K.E. Wilson, pp.
449-481. Old Woking, England: Unwin Brothers Ltd.
Cleghorn, P.L.
1982. the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry: Technological Analyses and Experimental
Tests. Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawai’i-Manoa. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms International.
Cleghorn, P.L.
1984. Organizational Structure at the Manua Kea Adze Quarry Complex, Hawaii. Journal
of Archaeological Science 13: 375-387.
Crabtree, D.E.
1968. Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades. American Antiquity
33(4): 446-478.
Dibble, H.L. 1984.
Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function,
Style, or Sequence of Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 11:
431-436.
Dibble, H.L. 1987.
The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American
Antiquity 52(1): 109-117.
Dibble, H.L. 1991.
Mousterian Assemblage Variability on an Interregional Scale. Journal of
Anthropological Research 47(2): 239-258.
Dibble, H.L. 1995.
Middle Paleolithic Scraper Reduction: Background, Clarification, and Review of
Evidence to Date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(4):
299-368.
Dumond, D.E.
1982.The Archaeology of Alaska and the Peopling of America. Science 209:
984-991.
Edwards, P. 1991.
Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian Site at Pella, Jordan. In The Natufian
Culture in the Levant, eds. O. Bar-Yosef and F.R. Valla, pp. 123-148. Ann
Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 1.
Garrod, D.A.E.
1932. A New Microlithic Industry: The Natufian of Palestine. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 41: 429-443.
Garrod, D.A.E. and
D.M.A. Bate. 1937. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Excavations at the Wady el-Mughara,
Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hester, T.R., H.J.
Shafer, and T. Berry. 1991. Technological and Comparative Analyses of the
Chipped Stone Artifacts from el Pozito, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools. Selected
Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, eds. T.R. Hester and H.J.
Shafer, pp. 67-83. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1. Madison: Prehistory
Press.
Hoffecker, J.F.,
W.R. Powers, and T. Goebel. 1993. The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling
of the New World. Science 259: 46-53.
Hole, F.
1977. Studies in the Archaeological history of the Deh Luran Plain: The
Excavation of Chagha Sefid. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 9. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
Hole,
F., K. Flannery, and J.A. Neley. 1969.Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh
Luran Plain: An Early Village Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Memoirs of the
Museum of Anthropology 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of
Anthropology.
Kooijmans,
L.P.L. 1972. Mesolithic Bone and Antler Implements from the North Sea and from
the Netherlands. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor Het Oudheidkundig
Bodemonderzock 20-21, 27-73.
Lass, B. 1994. Hawaiian
Adze Production and Distribution. Implications for the Development of Chiefdoms.
Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, Univertsity of California Monograph 37.
Lu, L.D. 1998. The
Microblade Tradition in China: Regional Chronologies and Significance in the
Transition to the Neolithic. Asian Perspectives 37(1): 84-112.
Maxwell, M.S. 1985.
Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. New York: Academic Press.
McPherron, S.P.
1994. A Reduction Model for Variability in Acheulian Biface Morphology.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthropology. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania.
McPherron, S.P.
1999. Ovate and Pointed Handaxe Assemblages: Two Points Make a Line. Préhistoire
Européene 14: 9-32.
Midant-Reynes, B.
1984. la Taille des Couteaux de Silex du type Gebel-el-Arak et la Dénomination
du Silex en Égyptien. In Origin and Early Development of Food-producing
Cultures in North-Eastern Africa, eds. L. Krzyzaniak and M. Kobnsiewicz, pp.
261-264. Poznan: Polish Academy of Sciences.
Moholy-Nagy, H.
1991. The Flaked Chert Industry of Tikal, Guatemala. In Maya Stone Tools.
Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, eds. T.R. Hester and
H.J. Shafer, pp. 189-206. Monographs in Wrold Archaeology No. 1. Madison:
Prehistory Press.
Olszewski, D.I.
1998. Activity, Space, and Time: The Lithic Assemblages. In Activities and
Settlement in an Upper Valley. Data Recovery and Monitoring Archaeology in North
Halawa Valley, O’ahu, Volume 1, pp. 39-90. Honolulu: Department of
Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Potts, R. 1984.
Home Bases and Early Hominids. American Scientist 72: 338-347.
Potts, R. and P.
Shipman. 1981. Cutmarks Made by Stone Tools on Bones from Olduvai Gorge,
Tanzania. Nature 291: 577-580.
Pullar, J. 1990. Tepe
Abdul Hosein, a neolithic Site in Western Iran: Excavations 1978. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports International Series 563.
Roebroeks, W., N.
Conard, and T. van Kolfschoten. 1992. Dense Forests, Cold Steppes, and the
Palaeolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. Current Anthropology 33:
551-586.
Rolland, N. and
H.L. Dibble. 1990. A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability.
American Antiquity 55(3): 480-499.
Shipman, P. 1986.
Scavenging or Hunting in Early Hominids: Theoretical Framework and Tests. American
Anthropologist 88: 27-43.
Turq, A. 1989.
Approche Technologique et Économique du Faciès Moustérien de Type Quina. Bulletin
de la Société Préhistorique Française 86: 244-256.
Villa, P. 2001.
Early Italy and the Colonization of Western Europe. Quaternary International
75: 113-130.
Weisgerber, G.
1987. The Ancient Chert Mines at Wadi el-Sheikh (Egypt). In The Human uses of
Flint and Chert, eds. G. Sieveking and M. Newcomer, pp. 165-172. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Weisler, M. (ed.)
1997. Prehistoric Long-Distance Interaction in Oceania: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 21.
Whittaker, J.C.
1984. Arrowheads and Artisans: Stone Tool Manufacture and Individual
Variation at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Arizona. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.
Wilke, P.J. 1996.
Bullet-Shaped Microblade Cores of the Near Eastern neolithic: Experimental
Replicative Studies. In Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile
Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. Studies in Early
Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3. Berlin: ex oriente.
Willey, G.R. 1972. The
Artifacts of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology 64(1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yde, J. 1965. Material
Culture of the Waiwai. Copenhagen: The National Museum, Roekke X.