Microblade technology

Microblade technology is a period of technological development marked by the creation and use of small stone blades, which are produced by chipping silica-rich stones like chert, quartz, or obsidian. Blades are a specialized type of lithic flake that are at least twice as long as they are wide.^[1] An alternate method of defining blades focuses on production features, including parallel lateral edges and dorsal scars, a lack of cortex, a prepared platform with a broad angle, and a proximal bulb of percussion.^[2] Microblades are generally less than 50 mm long in their finished state.^[3]

Here is an example of two microblades and a microblade core.

History

This technology was developed first in Northern China during the Upper Palaeolithic period, perhaps as early as 30,000 years ago. Because microblade technology is economical (using less raw material than other technologies), relatively easy to make, and extremely portable, it soon came into widespread use over vast parts of northern Asia and northeastern Siberia during and after the Ice Age. Microblade technology was very efficient for hunting because it used light, barbed spears. During the Ice Age, hunter-gatherers suffered from shortage of food resources, so they had to move more frequently. Microblade is suitable for frequent mobility as well as reducing failure of hunting.^[4] In other words, in the limited environment such as LGM which means reduced the quantity of the resource, the hunter-gatherers invest more time to acquiring better raw material and developing the technique of lithic manufacture. The microblade is the result of the struggle to survive in barren land.^[5]

The barbs would open wounds and the resulting blood loss would kill the prey faster and with less loss of hunting equipment than traditional spears. These weapons helped increase the rate of making weapons and killing animals. These changes in lithic technology appear to have been adaptations to reduced recourse availability due to climate changes during the Last Glacial Maximum and Younger Dryas allowing for more efficient sustenance strategies. An important site for learning more about the diverse adaptations of the microblade is Shuidonggou Locality 12 (SDG12). It was at this site that microblades were found along with diverse artifacts: needles, awls, and a bone knife handle. This handle is a big indicator that microblades were used for multiple purposes, and no longer were exclusive to hunting.^[6] In at least one site in Northern China, microblades are also found in context with heat shattered and burned stone, usually evidence for stone-boiling practices, another resource intensification strategy aimed at recovering more nutrients from a food resource via cooking.^[7]

The first Native Americans brought this technology with them across the Bering Land Bridge to North America. At leat six independent Native American groups used microblade technology, including the Poverty Point/Jaketown, Hopewell culture, Tikal Maya, and Northwest Coast peoples. Specialized craftspeople manufactured millions of microblades in the Mississippian chiefdom of Cahokia, in Illinois,^[8] as did Chumash (tribe) craftspeople in California's Northern Channel Islands. In both of these cases, microblades were sharpened to a point and attached to the end of sticks, creating microdrills. These microdrills were used to drill holes in marine shells to create beads. Shell beads were used as money among the Chumash, and as a result microblades were a vital part of the Chumash economy.

See also

• Microburin

References

1. Crabtree, Don E. (1972). An introduction to flintworking, (Occasional papers of the Idaho State University Museum, no. 28). Pocatello, Idaho: Idaho State University Museum.
2. Johnson, Jay K. (1983). Poverty Point Period Blade Technology in the Yazoo Basin, Mississippi. Lithic Technology.
3. Arnold, Jeanne E. (1987). Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
4. Yi, Mingjie; Bettinger, Robert L.; Chen, Fuyou; Pei, Shuwen; Gao, Xing (2014). "The significance of Shuidonggou Locality 12 to studies of hunter-gatherer adaptive strategies in North China during the Late Pleistocene". Quaternary International 347: 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.009.
5. Mackay, A; Marwick, B (2011). "Costs and benefits in technological decision making under variable conditions: examples from the late Pleistocene in southern Africa". Keeping your Edge: Recent Approaches to the Organisation of Stone Artefact Technology. BAR=S2273.
6. Yi, Mingjie; Bettinger, Robert L.; Chen, Fuyou; Pei, Shuwen; Gao, Xing (2014). "The significance of Shuidonggou Locality 12 to studies of hunter-gatherer adaptive strategies in North China during the Late Pleistocene". Quaternary International 347: 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.009.
7. Yi, Mingjie; Bettinger, Robert L.; Chen, Fuyou; Pei, Shuwen; Gao, Xing (2014). "The significance of Shuidonggou Locality 12 to studies of hunter-gatherer adaptive strategies in North China during the Late Pleistocene". Quaternary International 347: 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.009.
8. Yerkes, Richard W. Microwear, Microdrills, and Mississippian Craft Specialization. Society for American Archaeology.