The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: An experimental assessment

Journal of Archaeological Science

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 472-487

  Eren, Metin I ^a,b   Roos, Christopher I ^c   Story, Brett A ^d   von Cramon Taubadel, Noreen ^e   Lycett, Stephen J ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Southern Methodist University   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Acheulean; Experiment; Experimental archaeology; Handaxes; Raw material

Indexed keywords

ACHEULEAN; ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE; ARCHAEOLOGY; ARTIFACT; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; LITHIC FRAGMENT; TOOL USE;

EID: 84903479054     PISSN: 03054403     EISSN: 10959238     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.034     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abbott W.J.L. On the classification of the British Stone Age industries and some new, and little known, well-marked horizons and cultures. J.R. Anthropol. Inst. 1911, 41:458-480.
2. Andrefsky W. Raw-Material availability and the organization of technology. Am. Antiq. 1994, 59:21-34.
3. Andrefsky W. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Apel J. Knowledge, know-how, and raw material - the production of Late Neolithic flint daggers in Scandinavia. J.Archaeol. Method Theory 2008, 15:91-111.
5. Archer W., Braun D.R. Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western cape, South Africa: a geometric morphometric approach. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37:201-209.
6. Ashton N., McNabb J. Bifaces in perspective. Stories in Stone: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper No.4 1994, 182-191. Lithic Studies Society, London. N. Ashton, A. David (Eds.).
7. Aubry T., Bradley B., Almeida M., Walter B., Neves M., Pelegrin J., Lenoir M., Tiffagom M. Solutrean laurel leaf production at Maîtreaux: an experimental approach guided by techno-economic analysis. World Archaeol. 2008, 40:48-66.
8. Bar-Yosef O., Eren M.I., Yuan J., Cohen D., Li Y. Were bamboo tools made in prehistoric Southeast Asia? An experimental view from South China. Quat. Int. 2012, 269:9-21.
9. Baumler M.F. Principles and properties of lithic core reduction: implications for Levallois technology. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology 1995, 11-23. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. H.L. Dibble, O. Bar-Yosef (Eds.).
10. Beck M. The ball-on-three-ball test for tensile strength: refined methodology and results for three Hohkam ceramic types. Am. Antiq. 2002, 67:558-569.
11. Brantingham P.J. Aneutral model of stone raw material procurement. Am. Antiq. 2003, 68:487-509.
12. Brantingham P.J. The mathematics of chaîne opératoires. New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies 2010, 183-206. Springer, New York. S.J. Lycett, P.R. Chauhan (Eds.).
13. Brantingham P.J., Kuhn S.L. Constraints on Levallois core technology: a mathematical model. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2001, 28:747-761.
14. Brantingham P.J., Olsen J.W., Rech J.A., Krivoshapkin A.I. Raw material quality and prepared core technologies in Northeast Asia. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2000, 27:255-271.
15. Braun D.R., Plummer T., Ferraro J.V., Ditchfield P., Bishop L.C. Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2009, 36:1605-1614.
16. Browne C., Wilson L. Resource selection of lithic raw materials in the Middle Palaeolithic in southern France. J.Hum. Evol. 2011, 61:597-608.
17. Buchanan B., O'Brien M., Collard M. Continent-wide or region-specific? A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2014, 6:145-162.
18. Callahan E. The basics of biface knapping in the eastern fluted point tradition: a manual for flintknappers. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1979, 7:1-180.
19. Callow P. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Britain and Adjacent Areas of Europe 1976, (PhD thesis), University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
20. Clark J.D. Variability in primary and secondary technologies of the later Acheulian in Africa. AVery Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe 2001, 1-18. Oxbow Books, Oxford. S. Milliken, J. Cook (Eds.).
21. Clarkson C. Regional diversity within the core technology of the Howiesons Poort techno-complex. New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies 2010, 43-59. Springer, New York. S.J. Lycett, P.R. Chauhan (Eds.).
22. Costa A.G. Ageometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies 2010, 23-41. Springer, New York. S.J. Lycett, P.R. Chauhan (Eds.).
23. Crabtree D.E. Notes on experiments in flintknapping: 3. The flintknappers raw materials. Tebiwa 1967, 10:8-25.
24. de la Torre I. The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the Developed Oldowan/early Acheulean in East Africa. J.Hum. Evol. 2011, 60:768-812.
25. Diez-Martin F., Eren M.I. The Early Acheulean in Africa: past paradigms, current ideas, and future directions. Stone Tools and Fossil Bones: Debates in the Archaeology of Human Origins 2012, 310-358. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M. Dominguez-Rodrigo (Ed.).
26. Domanski M., Webb J., Boland J. Mechanical properties of stone aretfact materials and the effect of heat treatment. Archeometry 1994, 36:177-208.
27. Edwards S.W. Amodern knapper's assessment of the technical skills of the Late Acheulean biface workers at Kalambo Falls. Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site 2001, vol. III:605-611. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Eren M.I., Lycett S.J., Roos C.I., Sampson C.G. Toolstone constraints on knapping skill: Levallois reduction with two different raw materials. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2011, 38:2731-2739.
29. Eren M.I., Bradley B.A., Sampson C.G. Middle Paleolithic skill-level and the individual knapper: an experiment. Am. Antiq. 2011, 76:229-251.
30. Falsetti A.B., Jungers W.L., Cole T.M. Morphometrics of the Callitrichid forelimb: a case study in size and shape. Int. J. Primatol. 1993, 14:551-572.
31. Gero J.M. Assessing social information in material objects: how well do lithics measure up?. Time, Energy and Stone Tools 1989, 92-105. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R. Torrence (Ed.).
32. Goodman M.E. The physical properties of stone tool materials. Am. Antiq. 1944, 9:415-433.
33. Goodyear A. Ahypothesis for the use of cryptocrystalline raw materials among Paleoindian groups of North America. Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use 1989, 1-10. Westview Press, Boulder. C. Ellis, J. Lothrop (Eds.).
34. Gowlett J.A.J. The Empire of the Acheulean strikes back. Casting the Net Wide: Papers in Honor of Glynn Isaac and His Approach to Human Origins Research 2011, 93-114. American School of Prehistoric Research, Cambridge, MA. J. Sept, D. Pilbeam (Eds.).
35. Gurtov A.N., Eren M.I. Lower Paleolithic bipolar reduction and hominin selection of quartz at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: what's the connection?. Quat. Int. 2014, 322-323:285-291.
36. Harmand S. Variability in Raw Material Selectivity at the Late Pliocene sites of Lokalalei, West Turkana, Kenya. Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Oldowan 2009, 85-97. Springer, Dordrecht. E. Hovers, D.R. Braun (Eds.).
37. Holdoway S., Stern N. ARecord in Stone: the Study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts 2004, Victoria Museum, Melbourne.
38. Isaac G.L. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya 1977, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
39. Jennings T.A., Pevny C.D., Dickens W.A. Abiface and blade core efficiency experiment: implications for Early Paleoindian technological organisation. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37:2155-2164.
40. Jones P.R. Effects of raw material on biface manufacture. Science 1979, 204:835-836.
41. Jungers W.L., Falsetti A.B., Wall C.E. Shape, relative size, and size adjustments in morphometrics. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 1995, 38:137-161.
42. Lubbock J. Prehistoric Times 1865, Williams and Norgate, London.
43. Luedtke B.E. An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint 1992, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
44. Lycett S.J., Bae C.J. The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate. World Archaeol. 2010, 42:521-544.
45. Lycett S.J., Eren M.I. Levallois economics: an examination of 'waste' production in experimentally produced Levallois reduction sequences. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40:2384-2392.
46. Lycett S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel N. Toward a "quantitative genetic" approach to lithic variation. J.Archaeol. Method Theory 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9200-9.
47. Lycett S.J., von Cramon-Taubdel N., Foley R. Acrossbeam co-ordinate caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: a description, test, and empirical examples of application. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2006, 33:847-861.
48. Manrique H.M., Nam-mi Gross A., Call J. Great apes select tools on the basis of their rigidity. J.Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 2010, 36:409-422.
49. McPherron S. Variability in Acheulian handaxe morphology and its implications for typology. Axe Age: Acheulian Toolmaking: From Quarry to Discard (Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology) 2006, 267-285. Equinox Publishing, London. N. Goren-Inbar, G. Sharon (Eds.).
50. Manninen M., Knutsson K. Lithic raw material diversification as an adaptive strategy - technology, mobility, and site structure in Late Mesolithic northernmost Europe. J.Anthropol. Archaeol. 2014, 33:84-98.
51. Neupert M.A. Strength testing archaeological ceramics: a new perspective. Am. Antiq. 1994, 59:709-723.
52. Ritter J.E., Jakus K., Batakis A., Bandyopadhyay N. Appraisal of biaxial strength testing. J.Non-cryst. Solids 1980, 38-39:419-424.
53. Roe D.A. Ametrical analysis of selected sets of handaxes and cleavers from Olduvai Gorge. Olduvai Gorge 1994, vol. 5:146-234. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
54. Schick K.D. The Movius line reconsidered. Integrative Paths to the Past 1994, 569-596. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. R.S. Corruccini, R.L. Ciochon (Eds.).
55. Schillinger K., Mesoudi A., Lycett S.J. Copying error and the cultural evolution of "additive" vs. "reductive" material traditions: an experimental assessment. Am. Antiq. 2014, 79:128-143.
56. Schrauf C., Call J., Fuwa K., Hirata S. Do chimpanzees use weight to select hammer tools?. PLoS One 2012, 7:e41044.
57. Sharon G. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2008, 1329-1344.
58. Smallwood A. Clovis biface technology at the Topper site, South Carolina: evidence for variation and technological flexibility. J.Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37:2413-2425.
59. Smallwood A. Clovis technology and settlement in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to evaluate dispersal models. Am. Antiq. 2012, 77:689-713.
60. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. Biometry 1995, W.H. Freeman & Co, New York.
61. Stout D. The social and cultural context of stone-knapping skill acquisition. Stone Knapping: the Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior 2005, 331-340. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Oxford. V. Roux, B. Bril (Eds.).
62. Stout D., Quade J., Semaw S., Rogers M., Levin N. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. J.Hum. Evol. 2005, 48:365-380.
63. Whittaker J.C. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools 1994, University of Texas Press, Austin.
64. Winton V. An investigation of knapping-skill development in the manufacture of Palaeolithic handaxes. Stone Knapping: the Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behavior 2005, 109-116. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Oxford. V. Roux, B. Bril (Eds.).
65. Wynn T., Tierson F. Regional comparison of the shapes of later Acheulean handaxes. Am. Anthropol. 1990, 92:73-84.