The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability

The Lower Palaeolithic, epitomized by the Acheulean biface technology, is characterized by a degree of temporal and geographical stasis that is unparalleled in the lithic record. The reasons for this phenomenon have provoked considerable debate. However, whilst it is important to understand the overall stability of this techno complex, it is also important to address the considerable degree of variability evident at the level of individual locales. Why, for instance, do bifaces show a range of shapes and degrees of refinement? Why do some show high degrees of symmetry whilst others do not? Whilst it is widely acknowledged that such variability is the result of a number of factors, to date proposed theories tend to stress one factor as being of paramount importance. These have encompassed, amongst others, the influence of raw material, subsistence function, cognitive ability and the social context of manufacture upon biface form. This article, informed by recent empirical, experimental and theoretical work, attempts to move away from these largely single-factor models to present a multi-factorial model for biface variability. This model envisages that variability is caused by the differing motivations and constraints — ecological, physiological, biological, cognitive and social — which act upon the individual agent at any given point in time.

[1]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Determinants of Group Size in Primates: A General Model , 1996 .

[2]  Shannon P. McPherron,et al.  Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids , 2000 .

[3]  J. Wymer,et al.  The Lower Paleolithic Site at Hoxne, England , 1993 .

[4]  John C. Whittaker,et al.  Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools , 1994 .

[5]  C. Hunt,et al.  Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989–92 , 1994, Journal of the Geological Society.

[6]  Mark J. White,et al.  On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain , 1998, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.

[7]  F. Sirois Aesthetic experience , 2008, The International journal of psycho-analysis.

[8]  J. Levinson Philosophical Aesthetics: An Overview , 2005 .

[9]  B. Smith,et al.  Patterns of dental development in Homo, Australopithecus, Pan, and Gorilla. , 1994, American journal of physical anthropology.

[10]  D. Keen,et al.  Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at Elveden, Suffolk, UK , 2005, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.

[11]  Steven Mithen,et al.  Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness , 2007 .

[12]  Jacques Pelegrin,et al.  A framework for analysing prehistoric stone tool manufacture and a tentative application to some early stone industries , 1993 .

[13]  D. Counts,et al.  Patterns of human growth. , 1995, Science.

[14]  Stephen Shennan,et al.  Cultural learning in hominids: a behavioural ecological approach , 1999 .

[15]  Dietrich Stout,et al.  Neural Foundations of perception and action in stone knapping , 2005 .

[16]  H. Thieme Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany , 1997, Nature.

[17]  J. S. Oliver Estimates of hominid and carnivore involvement in the FLK Zinjanthropus fossil assemblage: some socioecological implications , 1994 .

[18]  J. Gowlett Form 2 The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces : modes , modalities , rules and language , 2005 .

[19]  D I Perrett,et al.  Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). , 2003, Journal of comparative psychology.

[20]  S. Mithen,et al.  Handaxes: products of sexual selection? , 1999, Antiquity.

[21]  A. Whiten,et al.  Cultural panthropology , 2003 .

[22]  Simon A. Parfitt,et al.  Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex , 1999 .

[23]  J. Pelegrin,et al.  Remarks about archaeological techniques and methods of knapping : elements of a cognitive approach to stone knapping , 2005 .

[24]  L. Straus The Hominid Individual in Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Landscapes, Locales and Artefacts. Clive Gamble , Martin Porr , 2006 .

[25]  M. Birmingham,et al.  The human story , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  Julie C. Stout,et al.  Stone Tool-Making and Brain Activation: Position Emission Tomography (PET) Studies , 2000 .

[27]  Jorge Simão,et al.  Tools evolve: The artificial selection and evolution of Paleolithic stone tools , 2002 .

[28]  C. Sartwell Aesthetics of the Everyday , 2005 .

[29]  Thomas Wynn,et al.  Evolution of sex differences in spatial cognition , 1996 .

[30]  G. Miller The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature , 2000 .

[31]  J. Henrich,et al.  The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. , 2001, Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

[32]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  Mb Roberts,et al.  Observations on the relationship between Palaeolithic individuals and artefact scatters at the Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove, UK. , 2005 .

[34]  Mithen,et al.  The Singing Neanderthals , 2005 .

[35]  J. Hallos "15 Minutes Of Fame": exploring the temporal dimension of middle pleistocene lithic technology. , 2005, Journal of human evolution.

[36]  P. R. Jones,et al.  Experimental Implement Manufacture and Use; A Case Study from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania , 1981 .

[37]  K. Laland,et al.  Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  A. Machin Why handaxes just aren't that sexy: a response to Kohn & Mithen (1999) , 2008, Antiquity.

[39]  R. Hosfield Four. Modes of Transmission and Material Culture Patterns in Craft Skills , 2009 .

[40]  J. Gowlett Beeches Pit: archaeology, assemblage dynamics and early fire history of a Middle Pleistocene site in East Anglia, UK , 2005 .

[41]  D. Stout Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production , 2002, Current Anthropology.

[42]  N. Uomini,et al.  Humans, tools and handedness , 2005 .

[43]  H. Bunn Early Pleistocene hominid foraging strategies along the ancestral Omo River at Koobi Fora, Kenya , 1994 .

[44]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Conditional Mate Choice Strategies in Humans: Evidence from ‘Lonely Hearts’ Advertisements , 1995 .

[45]  Lawrence H. Keeley,et al.  Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis , 1979 .

[46]  C. Schaik Social Evolution in Primates: The Role of Ecological Factors and Male Behaviour , 1996 .

[47]  C. Boesch Teaching among wild chimpanzees , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  B. Bogin Patterns of Growth and Development in the Genus Homo : The human pattern of growth and development in paleontological perspective , 2003 .

[49]  Peter Jones Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology , 1980 .

[50]  M. Pope Behavioural implications of biface discard: assemblage variability and land-use at the Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove , 2004 .

[51]  L. Eberly,et al.  Sex differences in learning in chimpanzees , 2004, Nature.

[52]  M. R.I.,et al.  Determinants of Group Size in Primates : A General Model , 2005 .

[53]  T. Wynn Archaeology and cognitive evolution. , 2002, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[54]  K. Coffing,et al.  Australopithecus to Homo: Transformations in Body and Mind , 2000 .

[55]  Fernando Díez Martín,et al.  The palaeolithic societies of Europe , 2000 .

[56]  B. Smith,et al.  Dental development and the evolution of life history in hominidae , 1991 .