Tool Standardization in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: a Closer Look (with comments)

Abstract

It has been postulated that one difference between Neanderthals and anatomically modern people lies in a ‘clearer mental template’ of flaked stone tools on the part of modern people. This is thought to have been manifested in greater tool standardization during the Upper Palaeolithic than in the Middle Palaeolithic. Testing of this hypothesis, using three samples of a characteristic Upper Palaeolithic tool class — burins — from one Middle Palaeolithic and two Upper Palaeolithic assemblages, reveals that they are equally standardized for both metric and non-metric traits. Further consideration suggests that most Palaeolithic flaked stone tools are poorly suited to test notions of standardization, although some tool attributes may be well suited when considered in specific adaptive contexts.

A Segment is not a Monolith: evidence from the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa

“…Standardization of stone tools has sometimes been linked to hafting requirements, specifically when composite tools were introduced, and when geometrics were produced (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn, 1999;Chase, 1991;Marks et al, 2001). According to Marks et al (2001) the portion of the tool that fits into the haft is most likely to be constrained in shape and/or dimensions, thus it is most likely that different parts of hafted tools would be unequally standardized. It would seem that thickness of segments should be one determining attribute, yet all the Sibudu segments have extremely unstandardized thicknesses.…”

Psychological components of middle paleolithic technology: The proceduralization of lithic core reduction

“…Moreover, archaeological research has often included explorations into aspects of human behaviour that effectively represent cognitive archaeological themes. These include expert versus novel technological performance (Bril et al, 2005;Roux et al, 1995;Roux and David, 2005), symmetry and standardization in tool design (Saragusti and Sharon, 1998;Marks et al, 2001;Kohn and Mithen, 1999), Style within the context of information exchange (Mithen, 1994a,b;Kuhn and Stiner, 2007;Wiessner, 1983;Wobst, 1977), planning depth and organisation (Roebroeks et al, 1988), risk management (Fitzhugh, 2001), intentionality, meaning and action (Byers, 1994(Byers, , 1999Kohn and Mithen, 1999;Noble and Davidson, 1993;Wynn, 1995) and artifact style (Sackett, 1986). In addition, studies have included those concerned with the onset of language (c.f.…”

Application of a new typological approach to classifying denticulate and notched tools: the study of two Mousterian lithic assemblages

“…The morphotypes identified are reminiscent of the morphology of redundant forms (Marks et al, 2001) that were created based on their quantitative features (Fig. 2).…”