Brief discussion on whether hominins made bamboo tools in Pleistocene East Asia

The Movius Line marks the boundary between the easternmost found Acheulean handaxes of western Eurasia and Africa, with the rare and unusual handaxes of East Asia. Originally, it was proposed that this difference lay in cognition between the hominin groups; the East Asian hominins thought to be culturally static (Brumm 2010: 8) and culturally retarded (West & Louys 2007: 512). However, as racist views in scientific literature became unacceptable, and some stone tools were found east of the Movius Line, palaeoanthropologists had to revaluate their ideas in keeping with scientific research rather than subjective prejudice (Brumm 2010: 9). One idea was The Bamboo Hypothesis, stating that; early eastern Asian hominins used bamboo and wood as their dominant tool, rather than stone, in their rainforest environment (Ibid: 8), with the Pebble Tool tradition and Hoabinhian tradition acting as manufacturing tools for the production of bamboo. The problem however, is that bamboo does not preserve well (West & Louys 2007: 512). Proponents of the bamboo hypothesis have since come up with methods to test their theory. Bar-Yosef et al. (2011: 18) made bamboo knives and examined sharpness, they found them ineffective on pork. The knife was easier to make than a stone tool, but the cost lay in the effectiveness. Since the bamboo knives could cut, the bamboo hypothesis cannot be falsified on those grounds, however it is suggested that bamboo tools become useless on thicker hides, and therefore a stone tool would be a much better implement (Ibid: 19). West & Louys (2007: 514) also tested cutting effectiveness using bamboo knives, finding that they dull quickly. It was postulated that this may not be a problem as East Asian hominins could have been nomadic, which would favour easy manufacture of tools. The ethnographic record also shows evidence of H. sapiens using bamboo tools (Ibid: 516), but whether this can be applied to other species of hominin needs to be questioned. Finally, West & Louys (2007) also examine cut marks on bone made by experimental stone and bamboo tool use. They find that bamboo knives create shallow cut marks compared to the deep grooves of stone. If marks like this were found in the hominin record, there may be evidence for bamboo tools, yet, it is mentioned that for these marks to be seen, the bone preservation must be of excellent condition (Ibid: 517), the proposed evidence declining away. The rainforest lifestyle of Asian H. erectus pictured by some, may also be conjectured; palaeo-environments in places such as Java may have been as open as Africa, with glacial-interglacial cyclicity causing the rainforest to contract and expand along with it (Brumm 2010: 11-12).

In conclusion, although the bamboo hypothesis cannot be disproved, at this point in time, it cannot be proved either. Possibly, more routes need to be travelled first and falsified before returning back to this idea, or, better means need to be researched before this hypothesis can be tested.

This is Dr. M. Eren, he was my old lecturer and made fantastic stone tools. I hope he doesn't mind me posting his picture here, but he did work with bamboo tools, shown in the bibliography below

Bibliography:

·      Bar-Yosef, O., Eren, M., Yuan, J., Cohen, D. & Li, Y. (2011). Were bamboo tools made in prehistoric Southeast Asia? An experimental view from South China. Quaternary International

·      Brumm, A. (2010). The Movius Line and the Bamboo Hypothesis: early hominin stone technology in Southeast Asia. Lithic Technology 35 (1)

·      West, J. & Louys, J. (2007). Differentiating bamboo from Stone Tool cut marks in the zooarchaeological record, with a discussion on the use of bamboo knives. Journal of archaeological science 34 (4)