Handaxes in South Africa: Two case studies in the early and later Acheulean

Li, Hao; Kuman, Kathleen; Leader, George M.; Couzens, Raymond

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2016.08.025

Cited by 30 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been suggested that reduction intensity might increase biface symmetry through the maintenance of a bifacial edge (Iovita et al 2017; Li et al 2016; McNabb et al 2018). To test this, we conducted regression analyses on the Acheulean biface assemblages of symmetry, as measured by the FlipTest, against reduction intensity, as measured by the scar density index (SDI) (Clarkson 2013; Shipton & Clarkson 2015).…”

Section: Symmetry In the Archaeological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Shipton

Clarkson

Cobden

2018

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acheulean bifaces dominate the archaeological record for 1.5 million years. The meaning behind the often symmetrical forms of these tools is the topic of considerable debate, with explanations ranging from effectiveness as a cutting tool to sexual display. Some, however, question whether the symmetry seen in many Acheulean bifaces is intentional at all, with suggestions that it is merely the result of a bias in hominin perception or an inevitable consequence of bifacial flaking. In this paper we address the issue of intention in biface symmetry. First, we use transmission chain experiments designed to track symmetry trends in the replication of biface outlines. Secondly, we use archaeological data to assess the symmetry of Acheulean bifaces from British, East African and Indian assemblages in relation to reduction intensity; the degree of bifaciality; and the symmetry of four Middle Palaeolithic bifacial core assemblages. Thirdly, we look at specific examples of the reduction sequences that produced symmetrical Acheulean cleavers at the sites of Olorgesailie CL1-1, Isinya, Chirki, Morgaon and Bhimbetka. All three lines of evidence support the notion that symmetry was a deliberately imposed property of Acheulean bifaces and not an epiphenomenon of hominin visual perception or bifacial technology.

show abstract

Section: Symmetry In the Archaeological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Shipton

Clarkson

Cobden

2018

CAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comparable data from the Cave of Hearths, South Africa, 88 was kindly provided by Hao Li. 89 This site was chosen because it has three stratified handaxe layers. I will only describe the Casablanca sequence 90 Most authorities consider the two assemblages to be squarely Middle Pleistocene.…”

Section: Difficulties and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…UK sites from the Marshall database can therefore be included. Comparable data from the Cave of Hearths, South Africa, was kindly provided by Hao Li . This site was chosen because it has three stratified handaxe layers.…”

Section: Difficulties and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Further Thoughts on the Genetic Argument for Handaxes

McNabb

2019

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Acheulean handaxe has always been considered a social phenomenon. Corbey et al. 35 provide a major challenge to this argument, arguing quite rightly, that it has never been independently established that handaxe temporal depth is a product of intergenerational social learning. They take a number of assumptions integral to the social argument and suggest, using parsimony, that a genetic explanation is equally as plausible for each of them. Complex structures, in hierarchically nested routines of action, can be built in the natural world by organisms following predetermined genetic sequences of actions triggered by external circumstances. However, there are some important points that the genetic argument dismisses that demonstrate an unequivocal social origin for the Acheulean handaxe. This article identifies those points and restores them to the debate. Parsimony affirms a social basis for handaxes and does not require a theoretical genetic predisposition.

show abstract

“…Bifaces go on to typify the next >1 million years of the archaeological record across the Old World ( Lycett & Gowlett, 2008 ; Gowlett, 2015 ; Moncel et al, 2015 ) until the onset of Middle Palaeolithic technologies ∼300 Kya ( Moncel et al, 2011 ; Tryon & Faith, 2013 ; Adler et al, 2014 ). The nature and extent of any chronological changes to stone technology during the Acheulean are debated (e.g., Vaughan, 2001 ; Chauhan, 2009 ; Gowlett, 2011 ; McNabb & Cole, 2015 ; Moncel et al, 2015 ; Gallotti, 2016 ), however, there are indications that later Acheulean bifacial tools (handaxes in particular) were at times produced using soft-hammer percussion, became thinner relative to their width (more ‘refined’), displayed greater evidence of intentional thinning, volume control (mass distribution), investment (e.g., time, skill), shaping and symmetry ( Gowlett, 1986 ; Saragusti et al, 1998 ; Schick & Clark, 2003 ; Grosman, Goldsmith & Smilansky, 2011 ; Beyene et al, 2012 ; García-Medrano et al, 2014 ; Li et al, 2018 ; Moncel et al, 2016 ; Gallotti & Mussi, 2017 ; Iovita et al, 2017 ; Shimelmitz et al, 2017 ), and at times displayed evidence of platform preparation prior to a flake’s removal ( Stout et al, 2014 ). Together, these technologies describe ∼3 million years of stone tool production and use during the Lower Palaeolithic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manual restrictions on Palaeolithic technological behaviours

Key

Dunmore

2018

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The causes of technological innovation in the Palaeolithic archaeological record are central to understanding Plio-Pleistocene hominin behaviour and temporal trends in artefact variation. Palaeolithic archaeologists frequently investigate the Oldowan-Acheulean transition and technological developments during the subsequent million years of the Acheulean technocomplex. Here, we approach the question of why innovative stone tool production techniques occur in the Lower Palaeolithic archaeological record from an experimental biomechanical and evolutionary perspective. Nine experienced flintknappers reproduced Oldowan flake tools, ‘early Acheulean’ handaxes, and ‘late Acheulean’ handaxes while pressure data were collected from their non-dominant (core-holding) hands. For each flake removal or platform preparation event performed, the percussor used, the stage of reduction, the core securing technique utilised, and the relative success of flake removals were recorded. Results indicate that more heavily reduced, intensively shaped handaxes with greater volumetric controls do not necessarily require significantly greater manual pressure than Oldowan flake tools or earlier ‘rougher’ handaxe forms. Platform preparation events do, however, require significantly greater pressure relative to either soft or hard hammer flake detachments. No significant relationships were identified between flaking success and pressure variation. Our results suggest that the preparation of flake platforms, a technological behaviour associated with the production of late Acheulean handaxes, could plausibly have been restricted prior to the emergence of more forceful precision-manipulative capabilities than those required for earlier lithic technologies.

show abstract

Handaxes in South Africa: Two case studies in the early and later Acheulean

Cited by 30 publications

References 48 publications

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Further Thoughts on the Genetic Argument for Handaxes

Manual restrictions on Palaeolithic technological behaviours

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About