Technology based evolution? A biometric test of the effects of handsize versus tool form on efficiency in an experimental cutting task

Edge Angle as a Variably Influential Factor in Flake Cutting Efficiency: An Experimental Investigation of Its Relationship with Tool Size and Loading

“…Both have previously been used to measure the efficiency of stone tools during cutting tasks (e.g., Jobson ; Machin et al . ; Prasciunas ; Key and Lycett , ). ‘Time taken’ was logged from a video recording of each cutting process, being defined as the period from the point of first contact between the flake and the rope up until the final (severing) cutting stroke broke contact.…”

“…As such, flake ‘length’ may be used here as a proxy from which to infer overall flake ‘size’ (defined in terms of gross morphological scaling). The definitions of these variables have previously been outlined elsewhere (Key and Lycett , ). All were recorded in millimetres using digital calipers, while mass was recorded in grams using digital scales.…”

“…; Hayden ; Gould ; Binford ; Hampton ; Sillitoe and Hardy ; Weedman ). Key to their success is the combination of their simple and expedient production techniques (e.g., Toth ; Hiscock ) coupled with a highly effective capability to cut both animal and plant material (Crabtree and Davis ; Walker ; Toth ; Jobson ; Frison ; Jones ; McCall ; Key and Lycett ).…”

“…Indeed, the use of such tools continued extensively into the historical and ethnographic records (Gould et al 1971;Hayden 1979;Gould 1980;Binford 1986;Hampton 1999;Sillitoe and Hardy 2003;Weedman 2010). Key to their success is the combination of their simple and expedient production techniques (e.g., Toth 1985;Hiscock 2004) coupled with a highly effective capability to cut both animal and plant material (Crabtree and Davis 1968;Walker 1978;Toth 1985;Jobson 1986;Frison 1989;Jones 1994;McCall 2005;Key and Lycett 2011).…”

Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-driven Archaeology

“…Results of such tests are not necessarily meant to be directly compared to archaeological data but instead to serve as a means of formally assessing and understanding the bounds of what is practically achievable when making or using stone tools in order to support or falsify potential motivating factors underlying patterns of tool production, use, morphology, and variability (Diez-Martin and Eren 2012; Lycett and Eren 2013b). There are several broad avenues of inquiry that have been investigated by means of experimental tests, including comparative morphology (Driscoll 2011;Eren and Lycett 2012;Gurtov, Buchanan, and Eren 2015;Presnyakova et al 2015;Williams and Andrefsky 2011); process controls (Patten 2002(Patten , 2005(Patten , 2009); tool use-life (Shott 2002); cognition and language (Geribas, Mosquera, and Vergès 2010;Mahaney 2014;Morgan et al 2015b;Putt, Woods, and Franciscus 2014;Stout et al 2000;Uomini and Meyer 2013); biomechanics (Faisal et al 2010;Key and Lycett 2011;Key and Dunmore 2015;Nonaka, Bril, and Rein 2010;Rolian, Lieberman, and Zermeno 2011;Richmond 2012, 2014); and the influence of stone raw material differences on lithic form (Archer and Braun 2010;Eren et al 2014b), production technology (Bar-Yosef et al 2012), tool function Galán and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2014;Rodríguez-Rellán, Valcarce, and Esnaola 2013;Waguespack et al 2009;Wilkins, Schoville, and Brown 2014), knapper skill (Duke and Pargeter 2015;Sampson 2011b, Eren et al 2011c;Stout and Semaw 2006;Winton 2005), use-wear accru...…”