Variability in an early hominin percussive tradition: the Acheulean versus cultural variation in modern chimpanzee artefacts

Abstract

Percussion makes a vital link between the activities of early human ancestors and other animals in tool-use and tool-making. Far more of the early human actions are preserved as archaeology, since the percussion was largely used for making hard tools of stone, rather than for direct access to food. Both primate tools and early hominin tools, however, offer a means to exploring variability in material culture, a strong focus of interest in recent primate studies. This paper charts such variability in the Acheulean, the longest-lasting tool tradition, extant form about 1.7 to about 0.1 Ma, and well known for its characteristic handaxes. The paper concentrates on the African record, although the Acheulean was also known in Europe and Asia. It uses principal components and discriminant analysis to examine the measurements from 66 assemblages (whole toolkits), and from 18 sets of handaxes. Its review of evidence confirms that there is deep-seated pattern in the variation, with variability within a site complex often matching or exceeding that between sites far distant in space and time. Current techniques of study allow comparisons of handaxes far more easily than for other components, stressing a need to develop common practice in measurement and analysis. The data suggest, however, that a higher proportion of traits recurs widely in Acheulean toolkits than in the chimpanzee record.

Investigating interrelationships between Lower Palaeolithic stone tool effectiveness and tool user biometric variation: implications for technological and evolutionary changes

“…Although researchers have similarly suggested links between hominin biometric variation/capabilities and the preferential production and use of variable stone tool forms/types (e.g., Marzke and Shackley, 1987;Niewoehner, 2001Niewoehner, , 2006Sandgathe, 2005;Gowlett, 2009Gowlett, , 2015Lycett, 2013;Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel, 2015;Key, 2016), direct evidence relating to these hypothesized relationships within Palaeolithic contexts is limited.…”

The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a major transition in human evolution

“…Despite this inter-site variability and recognition of the need to study whole assemblages (rather than specific tool types) in order to describe Early Stone Age technologies [3,4], it must be admitted that, since its definition and until today, all characterizations of the Acheulean eventually end up referring to its most emblematic artefact, the amygdaloidal, hand-held stone tool: from 'weapons of war' [5] and hache [6], through langue de chat, coup de poing [7], to handaxe, biface and large cutting tool (LCT), a myriad of terms have been used to name it. While the term biface is probably the most widely used in recent literature to encompass all typical Acheulean forms (i.e.…”

Percussive technology in human evolution: an introduction to a comparative approach in fossil and living primates

“…In the earlier context of the Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic, Dubreuil & Nadel [40] conduct a use-wear analysis of percussive artefacts to assess the role of pounding tools during the development of plant food processing among the Late Pleistocene hunter -gatherer societies from Ohalo II. The Levant is also the subject area of the study by Goren-Inbar et al [41], who introduce a new type of stone anvil from the Acheulean of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, thus reinforcing the view that battering activities, which include nut-cracking (see also [25]), were relevant and varied at this site. It is precisely the notion of Acheulean variability that Gowlett [42] discusses in his contribution, which he uses as a case study to reflect on the creation of a referential framework to interpret cultural variation in living chimpanzee material culture.…”