Life history of a large flake biface

Baena, Javier; Navas, Concepción Torres; Sharon, Gonen

doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.04.015

Cited by 32 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been documented in other parts of the Acheulean world, there was at Saffaqah limited fragmentation of reduction sequences, with a structured use of the landscape [ 11 , 40 , 58 – 62 ]. Unsurprisingly early reduction took place at the dyke workshop sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acheulean technology and landscape use at Dawadmi, central Arabia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite occupying a central geographic position, investigations of hominin populations in the Arabian Peninsula during the Lower Palaeolithic period are rare. The colonization of Eurasia below 55 degrees latitude indicates the success of the genus Homo in the Early and Middle Pleistocene, but the extent to which these hominins were capable of innovative and novel behavioural adaptations to engage with mid-latitude environments is unclear. Here we describe new field investigations at the Saffaqah locality (206–76) near Dawadmi, in central Arabia that aim to establish how hominins adapted to this region. The site is located in the interior of Arabia over 500 km from both the Red Sea and the Gulf, and at the headwaters of two major extinct river systems that were likely used by Acheulean hominins to cross the Peninsula. Saffaqah is one of the largest Acheulean sites in Arabia with nearly a million artefacts estimated to occur on the surface, and it is also the first to yield stratified deposits containing abundant artefacts. It is situated in the unusual setting of a dense and well-preserved landscape of Acheulean localities, with sites and isolated artefacts occurring regularly for tens of kilometres in every direction. We describe both previous and recent excavations at Saffaqah and its large lithic assemblage. We analyse thousands of artefacts from excavated and surface contexts, including giant andesite cores and flakes, smaller cores and retouched artefacts, as well as handaxes and cleavers. Technological assessment of stratified lithics and those from systematic survey, enable the reconstruction of stone tool life histories. The Acheulean hominins at Dawadmi were strong and skilful, with their adaptation evidently successful for some time. However, these biface-makers were also technologically conservative, and used least-effort strategies of resource procurement and tool transport. Ultimately, central Arabia was depopulated, likely in the face of environmental deterioration in the form of increasing aridity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acheulean technology and landscape use at Dawadmi, central Arabia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At a practical level, lithic analysts can measure the variables that affect the effectiveness of a tool for a particular task (e.g. morphology, edge angle, use traces), and draw inferences on decisions made during the life history of the object (Preysler et al 2018). Decision points identified by lithic analysts are etic observations, and though they can be independently verified, they do not reflect the meanings once held by their makers.…”

Section: Utilitarian or Symbolic?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Africa, hand-axes and cleavers were made as recently as 212 ka and possibly by Homo sapiens (Benito-Calvo et al 2014;de la Torre et al 2014). In Europe, hand-axes appear sporadically in contexts associated with late Middle Pleistocene Neanderthals (de Lumley et al 2004;Preysler et al 2018). In north central India, bifaces were still being made as recently as 100 ka (Shipton et al 2013), and presumably by H. sapiens.…”

Section: Icons To Symbols In the Archaeological Recordmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then examine the early archaeological record for evidence of socially constructed conventions (symbols) with a focus on the Acheulean of Africa and Eurasia from about one million years ago onwards when conventional tool forms become a recurrent feature of the archaeological record. The evidence takes the form of regional and chronological changes in approaches to making large bifaces (cleavers, hand-axes), and in the life history of these technologies which demonstrate spatially extended chaîne opératoires including the caching of tools in the landscape (Preysler et al 2018). Multiple ways of achieving similar ends (equifinality) become evident in core preparation strategies at this time (Sharon 2009; Galloti and Mussi 2017) which we interpret as evidence of culturally governed choices among viable alternatives (Latour 1992;Pfaffenberger 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semiotics and the Origin of Language in the Lower Palaeolithic

Barham

Everett

2020

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the origins of language can be detected one million years ago, if not earlier, in the archaeological record of Homo erectus. This controversial claim is based on a broad theoretical and evidential foundation with language defined as communication based on symbols rather than grammar. Peirce's theory of signs (semiotics) underpins our analysis with its progression of signs (icon, index and symbol) used to identify artefact forms operating at the level of symbols. We draw on generalisations about the multiple social roles of technology in pre-industrial societies and on the contexts tool-use among non-human primates to argue for a deep evolutionary foundation for hominin symbol use. We conclude that symbol-based language is expressed materially in arbitrary social conventions that permeate the technologies of Homo erectus and its descendants, and in the extended planning involved in the caching of tools and in the early settlement of island Southeast Asia.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, we can infer the duration of human occupation at a site and discuss settlement patterns (Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2011;Machado et al 2017). Obviously, this study domain is strictly related to an analysis of site function and economic strategies such as curation and expediency (Vaquero and Romagnoli 2018;Vaquero et al 2015) and the more general and complex topic of mobility in archaeology (Close 2000;Baena Preysler et al 2018).…”

Section: Refits: Still a Privileged Methods For Understanding And Intementioning

confidence: 99%