‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’

Mithen, Steven

doi:10.1017/s0003598x00097374

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is the same chemicals and same immersion in material culture that make us appreciate the same qualities (cf. Mithen 2008), a pleasure principle that appears pleasingly time-transferable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resonating through such interpretations is the idea that handaxes held aesthetic appeal for the makers and their observers, a sentiment expressed explicitly by Hodgson (2011) and Mithen (2008)—the latter declaring our modern appreciation of beautiful handaxes to be the echo of our Palaeolithic ancestors’ emotions. Others go further, detecting in handaxe symmetry the beginnings of an artistic or symbolic sense, perhaps emerging over time from functional concerns (Le Tensorer 2006; Hodgson 2011).…”

Section: Explaining Handaxe Symmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Symmetry is its own reward: on the character and significance of Acheulean handaxe symmetry in the Middle Pleistocene

White

Foulds

2018

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. 2) Does handaxe symmetry increase through time, perhaps demonstrating evolving cognitive structures and social intelligence in archaic Homo?We present data addressing the first of these questions and offer a novel explanation for both symmetry and the apparent 'tyranny of the handaxe' in the Lower Palaeolithic world. Explaining handaxe symmetrySensitivity to symmetry is a fundamental element of mammalian visual perception, hardwired and controlled by an automatically functioning brain network residing in the medial occipital gyrus (Hodgson 2009). In humans, it forms part of a package of core geometrical concepts that emerges at the age of about four months. From an evolutionary perspective, this may reflect that biologically important objects (such as people, predators and prey) are symmetrical, making symmetry perception a key discriminatory tool for processing visual information and, thus, vital for survival (Wynn 2002;Hodgson 2009).Yet, while symmetry may be evident in the pattern recognition mechanisms of animals in general (and ubiquitous in the natural world), it was only with the emergence of hominins of the Homo erectus grade and the Acheulean techno-complex (~1.75ma) that humans began to artificially impose symmetry (and shape) onto stone tools, in the form of handaxes. It is the imposition of form onto the world, rather than simply perceiving it in the world; that act constitutes for Wynn (1995, 2002) a cognitive leap, especially in shape recognition (symmetry, mirroring) and spatial thinking (the knapping process). The putative increased levels of symmetry after 500ka, when it is found not only in plan-view but also more commonly in side-and end-views, marks another cognitive milestone that saw the development of modern Euclidian understandings and manipulations of shape and space (Wynn 2002: 402). By this point, hominins were also able to intentionally manipulate symmetry in other ways, sometimes deliberately violating it by creating twisted edges-as Materials and methodsTwenty-two British Lower Palaeolithic assemblages were analysed, ranging in age from MIS13 to MIS8 (~520-300ka) and comprising 1405 handaxes. These were selected because they represent stratigraphically secure groups recovered from excavations, or by unbiased collectors (Roe 1968; White 1998a). The assemblages are listed in Hardaker and Dunn (2005) divided handaxes into six handaxe symmetry classes (HSC) and provided a description for each class (Table 2); a graphical key to understanding these values is p...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining Handaxe Symmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetry is its own reward: on the character and significance of Acheulean handaxe symmetry in the Middle Pleistocene

White

Foulds

2018

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a common theme in symmetry studies -Spikins (2012) expresses similar thoughts. Mithen (2008) unambiguously links the modern sense of aesthetic pleasure in looking and handling a finely made symmetrical handaxe to an emotional hangover from the Palaeolithic. A symmetrical handaxe is an "echo of the Stone Age past, of a time when these objects played a key role in sexual display and to which our modern minds remain attuned" (Mithen, 2008: 768).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

From side to side: Symmetry in handaxes in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic

McNabb

Cole

Hoggard

2018

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Acheulean is defined by its iconic tool type, the handaxe, and a suite of other large cutting tools (LCTs). These tools retain information on technical and procedural practices concerned with the manufacture of these butchery tools and carcass processing knives. The Acheulean straddles the period in which more ancient hominin species (H. erectus and H. heidelbergensis) give way to archaic H. sapiens (sensu lato) amongst whom the ancestor of modern humans may be found. The roots of modern behaviour may be present in these handaxe making hominin species, and the handaxes themselves, through proxy data such as bilateral symmetry, may chart hominin cognitive evolution as researchers such as T. Wynn and F. Coolidge (2016), amongst others, have argued. But the search for the earliest consistent application of symmetry, and its persistence thereafter has been hampered by the lack of large datasets, spanning the temporal extent of the Acheulean, and analysed through a single consistent methodology.Our paper has two aims. The first, and in the absence of a large comparative data set of earlier Acheulean handaxes, is to assess the degree to which symmetry is consistently applied to the making of handaxes in the later Acheulean (=<0.5 mya), a time when bilateral planform symmetry should already be an integral component in handaxe making. The dataset we select is the British Acheulean from MIS 13 -MIS 3/4. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time handaxe symmetry has been assessed on a large body of British Acheulean handaxes. Our second aim is to present a relatively simple and low tech methodology for the analysis of handaxes

show abstract

“…Another popular interpretation is that symmetry was a display marker for trustworthiness as a co-operative partner (Spikins 2012), or suitability as a mate (Kohn & Mithen 1999; Mithen 2003). This latter theory has engendered a lively debate in the literature about whether or not handaxe symmetry is sexually appealing (Burriss 2009; Hodgson 2009b; 2010; Machin 2008; Mithen 2008; Nowell & Chang 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Symmetry is its own reward: on the character and significance of Acheulean handaxe symmetry in the Middle Pleistocene

Symmetry is its own reward: on the character and significance of Acheulean handaxe symmetry in the Middle Pleistocene

From side to side: Symmetry in handaxes in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About