Identifying Major Transitions in the Evolution of Lithic Cutting Edge Production Rates

Abstract

The notion that the evolution of core reduction strategies involved increasing efficiency in cutting edge production is prevalent in narratives of hominin technological evolution. Yet a number of studies comparing two different knapping technologies have found no significant differences in edge production. Using digital analysis methods we present an investigation of raw material efficiency in eight core technologies broadly representative of the long-term evolution of lithic technology. These are bipolar, multiplatform, discoidal, biface, Levallois, prismatic blade, punch blade and pressure blade production. Raw material efficiency is assessed by the ratio of cutting edge length to original core mass. We also examine which flake attributes contribute to maximising raw material efficiency, as well as compare the difference between expert and intermediate knappers in terms of cutting edge produced per gram of core. We identify a gradual increase in raw material efficiency over the broad sweep of lithic technological evolution. The results indicate that the most significant transition in efficiency likely took place with the introduction of small foliate biface, Levallois and prismatic blade knapping, all introduced in the Middle Stone Age / Middle Palaeolithic among early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. This suggests that no difference in raw material efficiency existed between these species. With prismatic blade technology securely dated to the Middle Palaeolithic, by including the more recent punch and pressure blade technology our results dispel the notion that the transition to the Upper Palaeolithic was accompanied by an increase in efficiency. However, further increases in cutting edge efficiency are evident, with pressure blades possessing the highest efficiency in this study, indicating that late/epi-Palaeolithic and Neolithic blade technologies further increased efficiency.

The role of experimental knapping in empirically testing key themes in the evolution of lithic technology: reduction intensity, efficiency and behavioural complexity

“…For example, mathematical modelling is becoming increasingly more complex in experimental lithic studies (Brantingham and Kuhn 2001;Lycett and Eren 2013a;2013b). Additionally, digital recording methods like two-and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) photogrammetry have markedly improved our ability to morphometrically compare experimental lithic specimens (Eren et al 2008;Grosman 2016;Heighway 2011;Muller and Clarkson 2016a;Sumner and Riddle 2008). Finally, the application of 3D scanning to lithic technology and experimentation is a burgeoning technique which has improved our ability to accurately measure lithic attributes (Clarkson 2013;Clarkson and Hiscock 2011;Clarkson et al 2014;Grosman 2016;Grosman et al 2014;Lin et al 2010;Muller and Clarkson 2014;2016b;Richardson et al 2014;Sholts et al 2012;Shott and Trail 2010;Zaidner and Grosman 2015) and make comprehensive analyses of complex technologies (Archer and Braun 2010;Grosman et al 2011a;Grosman et al 2011b;Grosman et al 2008;Li et al 2015;Shipton 2016;Shipton and Clarkson 2015a;2015b).…”

“…Raw material efficiency refers to the utility of the output of knapping relative to the amount of stone used. It has been compared among a range of different technologies by quantifying the number and size of usable blanks removed during knapping (Barzilai and Goring-Morris 2013;Diez-Martin et al 2011;Jennings et al 2010;Li 2016;Lycett and Eren 2013a;Putt 2015;Rasic and Andrefksy 2001), as well as the length of sharp perimeter produced (Eren et al 2008;Heighway 2011;Lycett and Eren 2013a;Mackay 2008;Muller and Clarkson 2016a;Prasciunas 2007;Sheets and Muto 1972). These metrics are commonly and most powerfully expressed as a ratio to the mass of the original core or the mass of all blanks removed.…”

“…For example, several studies have assessed the degree of skill required for certain technologies, such as blades (Andrews 2006;Pelegrin 2006), bifaces (Carroll 2016;Nami 2006;Vicky 2005), daggers (Apel 2008;Callahan 2006;Nunn 2006), and Oldowan knapping (Duke and Pargeter 2015;Harlacker 2006). Others have explored the role of skill in determining varying levels of knapping success, commonly quantified by the efficiency of knapping and the incidence of knapping errors (Eren et al 2011b;Eren et al 2011c;Muller and Clarkson 2016a;Nichols and Allstadt 1978;Nonaka et al 2010;Shelley 1990;Stout et al 2014;Stout and Semaw 2006). Experiments have revealed knappers of varying skill levels in the archaeological record (Carroll 2016;Ferguson 2008;Fischer 1989;Pigeot 1990), and even identified instances of craft specialisation (Arnold 1987;Olausson 1993; and the mechanics of skill transmission, namely imitation, gestures and verbal cues (Geribàs et al 2010;Putt et al 2014;Shipton 2010).…”

“…A large body of work has clearly demonstrated the influence of knapper skill on the end-products of knapping (Eren et al 2011b;Eren et al 2011c;Muller and Clarkson 2016a;Nichols and Allstadt 1978;Nonaka et al 2010;Shelley 1990;Stout et al 2014;Stout and Semaw 2006 (Wright 1972) and Kanzi the bonobo (Toth et al 2006). Like experiments involving Homo sapiens knappers, these studies observe the behaviour of species with common ancestors to the hominins under investigation.…”

“…Of the complete blanks analysed thus far from the Neolithic occupation of Boncuklu, blades (18%) and bladelets (51%) outnumber complete flakes. With a recent study finding bladelets to be one of the most efficient blank types (Muller and Clarkson 2016a), it is likely that the heavy reliance on bladelets contributed to the efficient use of raw material at Boncuklu. Of the formal retouched tools at Boncuklu, microliths (N = 651) are among the most common, but notches, burins, scrapers and piercers are also present.…”