The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes

Ioviţă, Radu; McPherron, Shannon P.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.007

Cited by 116 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…EFA has been increasingly employed in lithic analyses, where analysts continue are developing novel approaches that advance archaeological applications (Cardillo, 2010;Fox, 2015;Ioviţă, 2009Ioviţă, , 2010Ioviţă, , 2011Ioviţă & McPherron, 2011;60 Smith et al, 2014;Gingerich et al, 2014;Sholts et al, 2012;Wilczek et al, 2015). Numerous creative research designs have also been presented that address some of the very real challenges associated with the oft-fractured and incomplete specimens abundant in the archaeological record (Byrne et al, 2016;Rezek et al, 2011;Smith, 2010;Smith & DeWitt, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Selden¹,

Dockall²,

Shafer³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This analysis of Gahagan biface morphology enlists the three largest samples of Gahagan bifaces, to include that of the type site (Gahagan Mound) as well as the Mounds Plantation and George C. Davis sites. Results indicate a significant difference in Gahagan biface morphology at the Mounds Plantation site when compared with Gahagan bifaces from the Gahagan Mound and George C. Davis sites. Tests for allometry and asymmetry were not significant. The test of morphological disparity indicates that Gahagan bifaces produced at the Mounds Plantation site occupy a more restricted range of morphospace than those produced at Gahagan Mound, providing indirect evidence for standardisation and diversity in Caddo biface production. While the sample includes a wide range of morphological variability, the test of morphological integration indicates that Gahagan bifaces are significantly integrated, meaning that those traits used to characterise their shape (blade and base) vary in a coordinated manner. These results articulate with a shift in Caddo bottle morphology over the same geography, potentially indicating two previously unrecognised and morphologically-distinct lithic and ceramic production areas.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Selden¹,

Dockall²,

Shafer³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certain tools are said to: "have artistic creativity" (Letensorer 2006), "show a high degree of craftsmanship i.e., they are "well made" (Iovita & McPherron 2011), appear to be 'over-engineered" (Mithen 2005) or in the case of the giant Cuxton ficron, "be of exquisite workmanship, almost flamboyant" (Wenban-Smith 2004). These qualities are all highly subjective and although it is clear that any appreciation or analysis of format requires that the tool being studied present a well worked shape; at present the study of lithics does not have a standard or guidelines on what constitutes craftsmanship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pattern Recognition of Universal Mathematical Constants in Acheulean Biface Formats

Cannell

2015

JLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The similar design formats of many Acheulean bifaces has prompted several studies into the use of 'mental templates', leading to controversial claims that there may be a relation between length and width equal to the Golden Ratio. To avoid subjectivity, these studies have used aggregate data from assemblages that, by definition, mask the individuality of each tool, its material, any retouching and the original imposed design. Visual pattern recognition is widely used in psychological research and some branches of engineering and a similar technique is presented to highlight the formats of two samples of the Boxgrove assemblage (one random) and examine the presence of universal mathematical constants. A probabilistic analysis suggests that the repeated use of the numbers 2, Pi and Phi and the relationship between them could not have been produced by chance. These relationships appear to be constant over very long time periods and are still used today in modern gemstone design.

show abstract

“…So far, our discussion of design space has been in terms of standard morphometric interlandmark measurements-for example, basal-indentation ratio-but an important companion method for analyzing design space is geometric morphometrics (GM), which has recently seen increased usage in archaeology (e.g., Archer and Braun 2010;Buchanan and Collard 2010;Cardillo 2010;Costa 2010;Lycett et al 2010;Shott and Trail 2010;Buchanan et al 2011;Iovita and McPherron 2011;Charlin and González-José 2012;Eren and Lycett 2012;Thulman 2012;Wang et al 2012;Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel 2013;Boulanger et al 2015;Smith et al 2015). As we demonstrate with an example below, GM creates relative warps, or the principal components of shape variables, that reflect the major patterns of shape variation within a group of specimens.…”

Section: Geometric Morphometricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Space and Cultural Transmission: Case Studies from Paleoindian Eastern North America

O’Brien

Boulanger

Buchanan

et al. 2015

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tool design is a cultural trait-a term long used in anthropology as a unit of transmittable information that encodes particular behavioral characteristics of individuals or groups. After they are transmitted, cultural traits serve as units of replication in that they can be modified as part of a cultural repertoire through processes such as recombination, loss, or partial alteration. Artifacts and other components of the archaeological record serve as proxies for studying the transmission (and modification) of cultural traits, provided there is analytical clarity in defining and measuring whatever it is that is being transmitted. Our interest here is in tool design, and we illustrate how to create analytical units that allow us to map tool-design space and to begin to understand how that space was used at different points in time. We first introduce the concept of fitness landscape and impose a model of cultural learning over it, then turn to four methods that are useful for the analysis of design space: paradigmatic classification, phylogenetic analysis, distance graphs, and geometric morphometrics. Each method builds on the others in logical fashion, which allows creation of testable hypotheses concerning cultural transmission and the evolutionary processes that shape it, including invention (mutation), selection, and drift. For examples, we turn to several case studies J Archaeol Method Theory

show abstract

The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes

Cited by 116 publications

References 43 publications

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Lithic morphological organisation: Gahagan bifaces from the Southern Caddo Area

Pattern Recognition of Universal Mathematical Constants in Acheulean Biface Formats

Design Space and Cultural Transmission: Case Studies from Paleoindian Eastern North America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About