Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T03:12:32.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Were Acheulean Bifaces Deliberately Made Symmetrical? Archaeological and Experimental Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

Ceri Shipton ,
Chris Clarkson  and
Rommy Cobden
Ceri Shipton
Affiliation:
Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Email: ceri.shipton@anu.edu.au
Chris Clarkson
Affiliation:
School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Email: c.clarkson@uq.edu.au
Rommy Cobden
Affiliation:
School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Email: rommy.cobden@uqconnect.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acheulean bifaces dominate the archaeological record for 1.5 million years. The meaning behind the often symmetrical forms of these tools is the topic of considerable debate, with explanations ranging from effectiveness as a cutting tool to sexual display. Some, however, question whether the symmetry seen in many Acheulean bifaces is intentional at all, with suggestions that it is merely the result of a bias in hominin perception or an inevitable consequence of bifacial flaking. In this paper we address the issue of intention in biface symmetry. First, we use transmission chain experiments designed to track symmetry trends in the replication of biface outlines. Secondly, we use archaeological data to assess the symmetry of Acheulean bifaces from British, East African and Indian assemblages in relation to reduction intensity; the degree of bifaciality; and the symmetry of four Middle Palaeolithic bifacial core assemblages. Thirdly, we look at specific examples of the reduction sequences that produced symmetrical Acheulean cleavers at the sites of Olorgesailie CL1-1, Isinya, Chirki, Morgaon and Bhimbetka. All three lines of evidence support the notion that symmetry was a deliberately imposed property of Acheulean bifaces and not an epiphenomenon of hominin visual perception or bifacial technology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 65 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldhouse-Green, S., Peterson, R. & Walker, E., 2012. Neanderthals in Wales: Pontnewydd and the Elwy Valley Cave. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Allen, J.S., Bruss, J. & Damasio, H., 2006. Looking for the lunate sulcus: a magnetic resonance imaging study in modern humans. The Anatomical Record 288 (8), 867–76.Google Scholar
Avants, B.B., Schoenemann, P.T. & Gee, J.C., 2006. Lagrangian frame diffeomorphic image registration: morphometric comparison of human and chimpanzee cortex. Medical Image Analysis 10 (3), 397–412.Google Scholar
Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., et al., 2013. The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (5), 1584–91.Google Scholar
Bruner, E., 2004. Geometric morphometrics and paleoneurology: brain shape evolution in the genus Homo. Journal of Human Evolution 47 (5), 279–303.Google Scholar
Bruner, E., Manzi, G. & Arsuaga, J.L., 2003. Encephalization and allometric trajectories in the genus Homo: evidence from the Neandertal and modern lineages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (26), 15335–40.Google Scholar
Burriss, R.P., 2009. Symmetry is sexy: reply to Hodgson's ‘Symmetry and humans’. Antiquity 83, 1170–75.Google Scholar
Clarkson, C., 2013. Measuring core reduction using 3D flake scar density: a test case of changing core eeduction at Klasies River Mouth, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 4348–57.Google Scholar
Claud, É., Deschamps, M., Colonge, D., Mourre, V. & Thiébaut, C., 2015. Experimental and functional analysis of late Middle Paleolithic flake cleavers from southwestern Europe (France and Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 62, 105–27.Google Scholar
Corbey, R., Jagich, A., Vaesen, K. & Collard, M., 2016. The Acheulean handaxe: more like a bird's song than a Beatles’ tune? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 25 (1), 6–19.Google Scholar
Corvinus, G., 1983. A Survey of the Pravara River System in Western Maharashtra, India: The excavations of the Acheulian site of Chirki-on-Pravara. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria.Google Scholar
Corvinus, G., 2006. Acheulian handaxes from the Upper Siwalik in Nepal, in Axe Age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard, eds Goren-Inbar, N. & Sharon, G.. London: Equinox, 415–28.Google Scholar
Costa, A.G., 2010. A geometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy, in New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical approached to Paleolithic technologies eds. Lycett, S.J. & Chauhan, P.R.. New York/Dordrecht: Springer, 23–42.Google Scholar
Cruz-Uribe, K., Klein, R.G., Avery, G., et al., 2003. Excavation of buried late Acheulean (mid-quaternary) land surfaces at Duinefontein 2, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (5), 559–75.Google Scholar
Darmark, K., 2010. Measuring skill in the production of bifacial pressure flaked points: a multivariate approach using the flip-test. Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (9), 2308–15.Google Scholar
de la Torre, I. & Mora, R., 2018. Technological behaviour in the early Acheulean of EF-HR (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania). Journal of Human Evolution. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.01.003Google Scholar
de la Torre, I., Mora, R., Arroyo, A. & Benito-Calvo, A., 2014. Acheulean technological behaviour in the Middle Pleistocene landscape of Mieso (East-Central Ethiopia). Journal of Human Evolution 76, 1–25.Google Scholar
de Lauriston, T.S.L.-L., 2015. An Exploration of Use-wear aAnalysis on Acheulean Large Cutting Tools: The Cave of Hearths’ Bed 3 Assemblage. Masters dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand.Google Scholar
De Sousa, A.A, Sherwood, C.C, Mohlberg, H., et al., 2010. Hominoid visual brain structure volumes and the position of the lunate sulcus. Journal of Human Evolution 58 (4), 281–92.Google Scholar
Deregowski, J.B., 2002. Is symmetry of stone tools merely an epiphenomenon of similarity? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3), 406–7.Google Scholar
Enquist, M. & Arak, A., 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372 (6502), 169–72.Google Scholar
Eren, M.I., Roos, C.I., Story, B.A., von Cramon-Taubadel, N. & Lycett, S.J., 2014. The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: an experimental assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science 49, 472–87.Google Scholar
Falk, D., Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M., Semendeferi, K., Alatorre Warren, J.L. & Hopkins, W.D., 2018. Identification of in vivo sulci on the external surface of eight adult chimpanzee brains: implications for interpreting early hominin endocasts. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 91, 45–58.Google Scholar
Galán, A.B. & Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., 2014. Testing the efficiency of simple flakes, retouched flakes and small handaxes during butchery. Archaeometry 56 (6), 1054–74.Google Scholar
García-Medrano, P., Ollé, A., Ashton, N. & Roberts, M.B.. 2018. The mental template in handaxe manufacture: new insights into Acheulean lithic technological behavior at Boxgrove, Sussex, UK. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. DOI: 10.1007/s10816-018-9376-0Google Scholar
Goren-Inbar, N., Lister, A., Werker, E. & Chech, M., 1994. A butchered elephant skull and associated artifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Paléorient 20, 99–112.Google Scholar
Grosman, L., Goldsmith, Y. & Smilansky, U., 2011a. Morphological analysis of Nahal Zihor handaxes: a chronological perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011, 203–15.Google Scholar
Grosman, L., Sharon, G., Goldman-Neuman, T., Smikt, O. & Smilansky, U., 2011b. Studying post depositional damage on Acheulian bifaces using 3-D scanning. Journal of Human Evolution 60 (4), 398–406.Google Scholar
Groucutt, H.S., Scerri, E.M.L., Amor, K., et al., 2017. Middle Palaeolithic raw material procurement and early stage reduction at Jubbah, Saudi Arabia. Archaeological Research in Asia 9, 44–62.Google Scholar
Gurd, J.M., Fink, G.R. & Marshall, J.C., 2002. Tacit symmetry detection and explicit symmetry processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3), 409.Google Scholar
Hardaker, T. & Dunn, S., 2005. The flip test – a new statistical measure for quantifying symmetry in stone tools. Antiquity 79.Google Scholar
Haslam, M., Harris, C., Clarkson, C., et al., 2012. Dhaba: an initial report on an Acheulean, Middle Palaeolithic and microlithic locality in the Middle Son Valley, north-central India. Quaternary International 258, 191–9.Google Scholar
Haslam, M., Roberts, R.G., Shipton, C., et al., 2011. Late Acheulean hominins at the Marine Isotope Stage 6/5e transition in north-central India. Quaternary Research 75 (3), 670–82.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. & Villeneuve, S., 2009. Sex, symmetry and silliness in the bifacial world. Antiquity 83, 1163–70.Google Scholar
Hill, J., Inder, T., Neil, J., Dierker, D., Harwell, J. & Van Essen, D., 2010. Similar patterns of cortical expansion during human development and evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (29), 13135–40.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., 2009a. Evolution of the visual cortex and the emergence of symmetry in the Acheulean techno-complex. Comptes Rendus Palevol 8 (1), 93–7.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., 2009b. Symmetry and humans: reply to Mithen's ‘Sexy Handaxe Theory’. Antiquity 83, 195–8.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., 2010. Another side of symmetry: the Acheulean biface debate. Antiquity 84, 325.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., 2011. The first appearance of symmetry in the human lineage: where perception meets art. Symmetry 3 (1), 37–53.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D., 2015. The symmetry of Acheulean handaxes and cognitive evolution. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2, 204–8.Google Scholar
Holloway, R.L., Clarke, R.J. & Tobias, P.V., 2004. Posterior lunate sulcus in Australopithecus africanus: was Dart right? Comptes Rendus Palevol 3 (4), 287–93.Google Scholar
Iovita, R., Tuvi-Arad, I., Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Voinchet, P. & Bahain, J.-J., 2017. High handaxe symmetry at the beginning of the European Acheulian: the data from la Noira (France) in context. PLoS One 12 (5), e0177063.Google Scholar
Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 12 (2), 153–65.Google Scholar
Jordan, J.S. 2002. Deriving intentionality from artifacts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3), 412.Google Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithen, S., 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73, 518–26.Google Scholar
Le Tensorer, J.-M., 2006. Les cultures acheuléennes et la question de l’émergence de la pensée symbolique chez Homo erectus à partir des données relatives à la forme symétrique et harmonique des bifaces [Acheulean cultures and the question of the emergence of symbolic thought in Homo erectus from the data relating to the symmetrical and harmonic form of bifaces]. Comptes Rendus Palevol 5 (1–2), 127–35.Google Scholar
Li, H., Kuman, K., Leader, G.M. & Couzens, R., 2016. Handaxes in South Africa: two case studies in the early and later Acheulean. Quaternary International. DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.08.025Google Scholar
Li, Y., Pizlo, Z. & Steinman, R.M, 2009. A computational model that recovers the 3D shape of an object from a single 2D retinal representation. Vision Research 49 (9), 979–91.Google Scholar
Little, A.C. & Jones, B.C., 2003. Evidence against perceptual bias views for symmetry preferences in human faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 270 (1526), 1759–63.Google Scholar
Machin, A.J., 2008. Why handaxes just aren't that sexy: a response to Kohn & Mithen (1999). Antiquity 82, 761–6.Google Scholar
Machin, A.J., Hosfield, R.T. & Mithen, S.J.. 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (6), 883–93.Google Scholar
McBeath, M.K., Schiano, D.J. & Tversky, B., 1997. Three-dimensional bilateral symmetry bias in judgments of figural identity and orientation. Psychological Science 8 (3), 217–23.Google Scholar
McNabb, J. & Cole, J., 2015. The mirror cracked: symmetry and refinement in the Acheulean handaxe. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 100–111.Google Scholar
McNabb, J., Cole, J. & Hoggard, C.S., 2018. From side to side: symmetry in handaxes in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 17, 293–310.Google Scholar
McPherron, S.P., 2013. Perspectives on stone tools and cognition in the early Paleolithic record, in Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and ecology, eds. Sanz, C., Call, J. & Boesch, C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 286–309.Google Scholar
Mishra, S., Deo, S., Abbas, R., Naik, S., Shete, G., Agrawal, N. & Rajaguru, S.N., 2009. Excavations at the early Acheulian site of Morgaon, Maharashtra (2000–2007), in Recent Research Trends in South Asian Archaeology. Pune: Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, 121–37.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J., 1994. Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 16, 64.Google Scholar
Mithen, S., 2003. Handaxes: the first aesthetic artefacts, in Evolutionary Aesthetics, eds. Voland, E. & Grammer, K.. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 261–75.Google Scholar
Mithen, S., 2008. ‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’. Antiquity 82, 766–9.Google Scholar
Movius, H.L., 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 38 (4), 329–420.Google Scholar
Nowell, A. & Chang, M.L., 2009. The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. Paleoanthropology 2009, 77–88.Google Scholar
Ostrofsky, J., Kozbelt, A. & Cohen, D.J., 2015. Observational drawing biases are predicted by biases in perception: empirical support of the misperception hypothesis of drawing accuracy with respect to two angle illusions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68 (5), 1007–25.Google Scholar
Owen, R.B., Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K. & Ditchfield, P., 2008. Diatomaceous sediments and environmental change in the Pleistocene Olorgesailie Formation, southern Kenya Rift Valley. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 269 (1–2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Petraglia, M.D., Alsharekh, A., Breeze, P., et al., 2012. Hominin dispersal into the Nefud desert and middle Palaeolithic settlement along the Jubbah palaeolake, northern Arabia. PLoS One 7 (11), e49840.Google Scholar
Petraglia, M.D. & Shipton, C., 2008. Large cutting tool variation west and east of the Movius Line. Journal of Human Evolution 55 (6), 962–6.Google Scholar
Piperno, M. & Tagliacozzo, A., 2001. The elephant butchery area at the Middle Pleistocene site of Notarchirico (Venosa, Basilicata, Italy), in The World of Elephants, eds. Cavaretta, G., Giola, P., Mussi, M. & Palombo, M.R.. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche, 230– 36.Google Scholar
Putt, S.S, Woods, A.D & Franciscus, R.G., 2014. The role of verbal interaction during experimental bifacial stone tool manufacture. Lithic Technology 39 (2), 96–112.Google Scholar
Raynal, J.-P., Sbihi Alaoui, F.Z., Geraads, D., Magoga, L. & Mohi, A., 2001. The earliest occupation of North-Africa: the Moroccan perspective. Quaternary International 75 (1), 65–75.Google Scholar
Roberts, M.B. & Parfitt, S.A., 1999. Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Roche, H., Brugal, J.-P., Lefevre, D., Ploux, S. & Texier, P.-J., 1988. Isenya: état des recherches sur un nouveau site acheuléen d'Afrique orientale [Isenya: state of research on a new Acheulean site in East Africa]. African Archaeological Review 6 (1), 27–55.Google Scholar
Saragusti, I., Sharon, I., Katzenelson, O. & Avnir, D., 1998. Quantitative analysis of the symmetry of artefacts: Lower Paleolithic handaxes. Journal of Archaeological Science 25 (8), 817–25.Google Scholar
Sasaki, Y., Vanduffel, W., Knutsen, T., Tyler, C. & Tootell, R., 2005. Symmetry activates extrastriate visual cortex in human and nonhuman primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (8), 3159–63.Google Scholar
Saunders, J.A. & Knill, D.C., 2001. Perception of 3D surface orientation from skew symmetry. Vision Research 41 (24), 3163–83.Google Scholar
Schick, K. & Toth, N., 2017. Acheulean industries of the Early and Middle Pleistocene, Middle Awash, Ethiopia. L'Anthropologie. DOI: 10.1016/j.anthro.2017.10.009Google Scholar
Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N. & Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Cultural conservatism and variability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya ‘aqov. Journal of Human Evolution 60 (4), 387–97.Google Scholar
Shipton, C., 2013. A Million Years of Hominin Sociality and Cognition: Acheulean bifaces in the Hunsgi-Baichbal Valley, India. (BAR International series 2468.) Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Shipton, C., 2016. Hierarchical organization in the Acheulean to Middle Palaeolithic transition at Bhimbetka, India. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 26 (4), 601–18.Google Scholar
Shipton, C., 2018. Biface knapping skill in the East African Acheulean: progressive trends and random walks. African Archaeological Review. DOI: 10.1007/s10437-018-9287-1Google Scholar
Shipton, C., in press. The evolution of social transmission in the Acheulean, in Squeezing Minds from Stones, eds. Overmann, K. & Coolidge, F.L.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shipton, C. & Clarkson, C., 2015. Flake scar density and handaxe reduction intensity. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2, 169–75.Google Scholar
Shipton, C. & Clarkson, C., 2015. Handaxe reduction and its influence on shape: an experimental test and archaeological case study. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3, 408–19.Google Scholar
Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., Bernal, M.A., et al., 2013. Variation in lithic technological strategies among the Neanderthals of Gibraltar. PLoS One 8 (6), e65185.Google Scholar
Shipton, C. & Nielsen, M., 2015. Before cumulative culture. Human Nature 26 (3), 331–45.Google Scholar
Silverman, I., 2002. Symmetry and human spatial cognition: an alternative perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3), 418.Google Scholar
Solodenko, N., Zupancich, A., Nunziante Cesaro, S., Marder, O., Lemorini, C. & Barkai, R., 2015. Fat residue and use-wear found on Acheulian biface and scraper associated with butchered elephant remains at the site of Revadim, Israel. PLoS One 10 (3), e0118572.Google Scholar
Spikins, P., 2012. Goodwill hunting? Debates over the ‘meaning'of Lower Palaeolithic handaxe form revisited. World Archaeology 44 (3), 378–92.Google Scholar
Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J. & Roberts, M., 2014. Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 576– 90.Google Scholar
Tennie, C., Braun, D.R, Premo, L.S. & McPherron, S.P., 2016. The Island test for cumulative culture in the Paleolithic, in The Nature of Culture, eds. Haidle, M.N., Conard, N. & Bolus, M.. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Toth, N. & Schick, K., 2009. The importance of actualistic studies in early Stone Age research: some personal reflections, in The Cutting Edge: New approaches to the archaeology of human origins, eds. Schick, K. & Toth, N.. Gosport (IN): Stone Age Institute Press, 267–344.Google Scholar
Treder, M.S., 2010. Behind the looking-glass: a review on human symmetry perception. Symmetry 2 (3), 1510–43.Google Scholar
Van Essen, D.C., Lewis, J.W., Drury, H.A., Hadjikhani, N., Tootell, R.B.H., Bakircioglu, M. & Miller, M.I., 2001. Mapping visual cortex in monkeys and humans using surface-based atlases. Vision Research 41 (10–11), 1359–78.Google Scholar
White, M. & Foulds, F., 2018. Symmetry is its own reward: on the character and significance of Acheulean handaxe symmetry in the Middle Pleistocene. Antiquity 92: 304–19.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 1979. The intelligence of later Acheulean hominids. Man 14 (3), 371–91.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 1995. Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology 27 (1), 10–24.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 2000. Symmetry and the evolution of the modular linguistic mind, in Evolution and the Human Mind: Modularity, language and meta-cognition, eds. Carruthers, P. & Chamberlain, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113–39.Google Scholar
Wynn, T., 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (3), 389–402.Google Scholar
Wynn, T. & Gowlett, J., 2018. The handaxe reconsidered. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 27 (1), 21–9.Google Scholar