sanjeevim 31/7/08 01:29

RWAR_A_326264

(XML)

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’ Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Abstract The Acheulean, sometimes known as ‘the great handaxe tradition’, is the longest-lasting entity in the human cultural record. The oldest sites are in Africa at around 1.6 million years ago and the most recent approach the last 100,000 years. The geographical extent is also enormous, ranging across Africa, the Middle East, most of Europe and large parts of Asia. Is it however a real tradition? The Acheulean represents a set of stone-working ideas that endure, but the strength of ‘tradition’ is often an assumption made by archaeologists. This paper re-examines Acheulean biface variation, looking at sets of assemblages measured in different ways, but amenable to discriminant analysis (DFA), which is able to highlight differences useful in classification. The analyses show significant differences between European and African assemblages. In the case of the Far East, in line with others, we provide further analyses suggestive of technological differences between putative ‘handaxes’ from Korea and some ‘classic’ western assemblages. However, it is not yet fully clear how far a ‘typical’ Acheulean tradition is represented, as matching of Far Eastern assemblages to other parts of the world depends to an extent upon the criteria used. With regard to the more general Acheulean paradox, the paper notes parallels in biological studies with the idea that a single widely extending phenomenon can incorporate elements of both unity and diversity.

Keywords Traditions; social transmission; variation; Acheulean; handaxes; Movius Line.

Introduction Classic handaxes are found in Palaeolithic contexts across huge tracts of Africa, the Near East, the Indian subcontinent and many parts of Europe. Currently, such artefacts are known through a date range of c.1.6 Ma to 5200 Ka (Asfaw et al. 1992; Clark 1994; Roche and Kibunjia 1994; Schild and Wendorf 1977). Along with cleavers, they are collectively the hallmark of the ‘Acheulean’. The Acheulean is often seen as representative of technological stasis and homogeneity over its huge domain of time and space. As a

World Archaeology Vol. 40(3): 295–315 Tradition ª 2008 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438240802260970

296

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

prehistoric ‘tradition’ the Acheulean would, therefore, appear to be without parallel (except perhaps for the preceding Oldowan). Recently, however, some have questioned the extent to which Acheulean assemblages constitute a single coherent ‘tradition’. Here, we take a further look at variability within the Acheulean in order to investigate how far such artefacts do represent a sense of tradition. We also consider arguments relating to the geographic extent of this supposed phenomenon. In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in the Acheulean, marked by major conferences and books (e.g. de Lumley in prep.; Goren-Inbar and Sharon 2006). In the 1960s, the first era of quantification, it seemed as if the Acheulean would become studied through standardized approaches (e.g. Isaac 1977; Roe 1964). In reality, this new research has led to a new diversity of approaches, which is probably healthy for the pursuit of individual research questions. A consequence, however, is that it remains difficult to compare the Acheulean in equal terms. Our paper reflects this even in its chosen examples, which work from quite different levels of resolution in the available data. Apart from documentation of local records, several major questions are being tackled in current research. They include the duration of the Acheulean, its geographic spread, the functions of the bifaces and other tools, and the elements of design and sociality in the evidence. In this paper, we do not undertake the massive task of a general review, but we offer a few comments as backdrop before concentrating on one selected major issue, that of cultural continuity. In general, the Acheulean is recognized by the presence of bifaces rather than any other criterion. In eastern Africa they appear, perhaps in varied form, as early as 1.6 Ma. At its late end, the continuing presence of handaxes potentially draws the Acheulean phenomenon into the Middle Palaeolithic and African Middle Stone Age. Is this still Acheulean? In the case of the French Mousterian ‘of Acheulean tradition’ (MTA), most workers would say not, but there is a case elsewhere for the Acheulean continuing until the last interglacial (e.g. Schild and Wendorf 1977). In geographical extent, handaxes cover at least two-thirds of the Old World. But in some areas, such as Greece, the total number of handaxes may be less than a dozen (Darlas 1994), so care must be taken before asserting the Acheulean as a blanket phenomenon. Functions of bifaces might also vary across such great domains of time and space. Recent enquiries, like older ones, stress their role in butchery, and in wood-working, but it is possible that there were both generalpurpose and specialized forms at different times and places. Questions of design, operational chains, and the social embeddedness of these, have also become important issues for continuing research. Here, by intention, we focus on one major question, which is, however, easily relatable to most of the issues just outlined. Do Acheulean bifaces merely look similar – or do they represent one continuous long-lasting tradition (i.e. set of socially transmitted ideas) with coherence and integrity as a single phenomenon?

Is the Acheulean a tradition? A significant amount of academic debate has been given to questions surrounding the degree of stasis, homogeneity, variability and standardization within the Acheulean,

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

297

especially in terms of artefactual (i.e. handaxe form) variability (e.g. Ashton and McNabb 1994; Crompton and Gowlett 1993; Gowlett 1984, 1998; Isaac 1977; McPherron 2000, 2006; Roe 1976; Vaughan 2001; Wynn 1995, 2002; Wynn and Tierson 1990). The transmission of ideas in artefacts has long been seen as ‘cultural’, but it has become increasingly apparent that in hominin societies the skills associated with a task such as handaxe manufacture may reasonably be assumed to have been inherited via a process of social transmission (Mithen 1994, 1996, 1999; Shennan and Steele 1999; Stout 2005). Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that cultural variability and tool-use behaviours in some non-human primates are the result of analogous processes of social transmission of information between individuals and across generations (Biro et al. 2003; Lycett et al. 2007; Matsuzawa et al. 2001; McGrew 1992, 2004; Whiten 2005). In turn, this has led to suggestions that some species of non-human primates exhibit socially acquired regional patterns of variation (i.e. ‘traditions’) analogous to those of humans (Lycett et al. 2007; van Schaik et al. 2003; Whiten et al. 1999). Hence, geographic variation in traditions (distinct socially learned patterns of behaviour) is now seen as a key element in the definition of both human and, more recently, animal culture (Eerkens and Lipo 2007; Lycett et al. 2007; McGrew 2004). Various and sometimes contradictory views have been presented regarding the extent to which the Acheulean represents a weak or a strong tradition. The classic view applied to the Acheulean – especially by synthesizers – is one of a general consistency and conservatism across the Acheulean range (e.g. Tattersall et al. 1988). It is certainly true that there are strong patterns of variability that seem to hold for Acheulean handaxes across large tracts of time and space (Gowlett 1984, 1996; Isaac 1972). Hence, Desmond Clark wrote that the ‘overall impression given by the Acheulean is of conservative conformity within the parameters of the technology and the ‘‘mental template’’ persisting throughout the long range of time that the complex is known to have existed’ (1994: 453– 4). Such views have been used to support the notion that the Acheulean represents a relatively strong tradition (e.g. Mithen 1996, 1999). Nevertheless, some who accept this believe in a basic uniformity, whereas others have suggested that distinctive patterns are evident in the shapes of handaxes from different regions, potentially indicating regional variations or even distinct ‘traditions’ (Wynn and Tierson 1990). Recently, however, McNabb et al. (2004) examined data from the Cave of Hearths and six other Acheulean sites in South Africa at a more localized level of analysis. They argue that intra-site variability within the data sets evinces little evidence of strong patterns of social learning or communally sanctioned notions of manufacture and end product (McNabb et al. 2004: 666–7). One conclusion from this might be that only rather weak notions of ‘tradition’ were held during the Acheulean. In counterpoint, looking at eastern England, Mithen (1994) saw strong tradition in the Acheulean, contrasting it with weak tradition in the Clactonian, which lacked the characteristic Acheulean bifaces. Currently, therefore, there appears to be some disparity among Palaeolithic archaeologists regarding the degree to which they see the Acheulean as a ‘tradition’ or ‘traditions’ of artefact manufacture. Yet, the importance of this issue transcends the disciplinary boundaries of archaeology, since scientists from other fields draw upon archaeologists’ inferences concerning the Acheulean when considering matters such as cognitive evolution (e.g. Whiten 1999: 186) and the emergence of language (e.g. Dunbar 1996: 116).

298

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Taking another look at Acheulean diversity In addition to the issue of cultural tradition, there are, of course, several reasons why artefacts such as handaxes might vary both within and between different assemblages, some of the most obvious and oft-cited factors being function, raw material and reduction intensity (Isaac 1986; McPherron 2000; White 1998). Nonetheless, despite the frequency with which such issues appear in the literature there have been – with rare exceptions (e.g. Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel 2008; Noll and Petraglia 2003; Norton et al. 2006; Vaughan 2001; Wynn and Tierson 1990) – few detailed comparisons of Acheulean handaxe variability across broad geographic (i.e. pancontinental) regions. One of the most comprehensive comparisons of Acheulean biface form across different geographic regions was undertaken by Wynn and Tierson (1990). Their study involved using a system of twenty-two linear radial measurements taken from digitized handaxe outlines. Their sample included handaxes from Africa, the Near East, India and Europe. Using a discriminant function analysis (DFA) of these size-adjusted linear measurements, they found that 42.4 per cent of the handaxes could correctly be assigned to region of origin, which in this instance was used as the a priori grouping variable. Hence, it initially seemed that Wynn and Tierson’s (1990) innovative study supported the idea that Acheulean bifaces show evidence of distinct regional traditions. Gowlett and Crompton (1994) were able to confirm the power of DFA discrimination, noting that at Kariandusi it was further improved through incorporating thickness data. However, Wynn and Tierson’s study later drew criticism on the grounds that the procedure employed for size-adjusting the morphometric dataset involved dividing each measurement by overall biface length (McPherron 2000). Adjusting for the effects of scale differences by dividing linear measurements with a single measurement such as ‘length’ is problematic since it does not effectively remove correlations with size (Reist 1985). As demonstrated by McPherron (2000), at least some of the patterns found by Wynn and Tierson might be explicable purely in terms of size differences between specimens from the different regions, which will largely reflect differences in raw material blank form sizes and/or reduction intensity rather than preconceived notions of form or socially transmitted factors that affect form. In order to explore the issue of variability within the Acheulean one of us first undertook a study designed to overcome some of these problems. Data were collected for a series of n ¼ 255 handaxes from ten localities distributed throughout the Palaeolithic Old World (Table 1). Morphometric data were collected for all 255 handaxes via use of a Crossbeam Co-ordinate Caliper (Lycett et al. 2006). Artefacts were orientated in standard fashion using a geometric protocol (Lycett 2007a). This initially provided a series of fifty-four variables (Table 2), previously described in detail elsewhere (Lycett et al. 2006). Descriptions of six additional variables used in the analysis (i.e. variables 55–60, Table 2) may be found in Lycett (2007a). Variables 1–48 (Euclidean distance variables) were size-adjusted by the geometric mean method (Jungers et al. 1995; Lycett et al. 2006). The geometric mean is the nth root of the product of all n variables (Jungers et al. 1995). The method proceeds on a specimenby-specimen basis, dividing each variable in turn by the geometric mean of all variables

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

299

Table 1 The ten Acheulean localities, sample sizes and raw materials employed in DF analysis 1 Locality

n

Raw material

Attirampakkam, India Bezez Cave (Level C), Adlun, Lebanon Elveden, Suffolk, UK Kariandusi, Kenya Kharga Oasis (KO10c), Egypt Lewa, Kenya Olduvai Gorge (Bed II), Tanzania Morgah, Pakistan St Acheul, France Tabun Cave (Layer Ed), Israel

30 30 24 30 17 30 13 21 30 30

Quartzite Chert Chert Lava Chert Lava Quartz, lava Quartzite Chert Chert

Table 2 The sixty morphometric variables used in DF analysis 1 (for further details see Lycett et al. (2006) and Lycett (2007a)) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core Core

left width at 10% of length left width at 20% of length left width at 25% of length left width at 30% of length left width at 35% of length left width at 40% of length left width at 50% of length left width at 60% of length left width at 65% of length left width at 70% of length left width at 75% of length left width at 80% of length left width at 90% of length right width at 10% of length right width at 20% of length right width at 25% of length right width at 30% of length right width at 35% of length right width at 40% of length right width at 50% of length right width at 60% of length right width at 65% of length right width at 70% of length right width at 75% of length right width at 80% of length right width at 90% of length length distal at 10% of width length distal at 20% of width length distal at 25% of width length distal at 30% of width

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

Core length distal at 40% of width Core length distal at 50% of width Core length distal at 60% of width Core length distal at 70% of width Core length distal at 75% of width Core length distal at 80% of width Core length distal at 90% of width Core length proximal at 10% of width Core length proximal at 20% of width Core length proximal at 25% of width Core length proximal at 30% of width Core length proximal at 40% of width Core length proximal at 50% of width Core length proximal at 60% of width Core length proximal at 70% of width Core length proximal at 75% of width Core length proximal at 80% of width Core length proximal at 90% of width Coefficient of surface curvature 0–1808 Coefficient of surface curvature 90–2708 Coefficient of surface curvature 45–2258 Coefficient of surface curvature 135–3158 Coefficient of edge-point undulation Index of Symmetry Max width/width at orientation Maximum length divided by length at orientation Nuclei outline length (divided by Geomean) Area of largest flake scar CV of complete flake scar lengths CV complete flake scar widths

300

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

to be size-adjusted. In contrast to dividing variables by only a single proxy of ‘size’ (e.g. biface length), the procedure effectively equalizes the volume of all specimens in a sample creating a dimensionless scale-free variable while preserving the original shape information in the data (Jungers et al. 1995). It is important to note that scaling data in this manner by no means implies that an investigator is automatically making the assumption that ‘size’ is an unimportant aspect of the variation between specimens. Indeed, one of us has previously shown that an increase in the absolute length of Acheulean handaxes does not lead to an isometrically scaled increase in artefact thickness (Crompton and Gowlett 1993). Rather, the relationship of thickness to length in Acheulean handaxes is allometrically scaled, such that longer handaxes tend to be comparatively thinner than shorter forms. This has been interpreted as a design reconciliation between increasing linear dimensions and artefact weight (Crompton and Gowlett 1993). If isometrically scaled, doubling the length of a handaxe would lead to a weight rise by a factor of eight, whereas in general we find the rise is of the order of five times, indicating that sizerelated adjustments were made (e.g. making longer handaxes comparatively thinner). Here, however, we aim to emphasize shape differences. As understood in mathematical terms, any raw linear dimension of an object (e.g. ‘length’) is a combination of size plus shape. By removing the differences in isometric scaling between handaxe forms we are thus emphasizing shape differences. The sixty morphometric variables were subjected to a discriminant function analysis. DFA is a multivariate technique that is used to provide a set of weightings (i.e. discriminant functions) that most effectively discriminate between groups that have been defined a priori (e.g. on the basis of locality). These weightings are linear combinations of the independent variables (Sokal and Rohlf 1995). The weightings determine the quantity (percentage) of artefacts that may be correctly assigned to their correct (pre-defined) group via the data inputted to the analysis. Hence, it may be predicted that if there is little information regarding morphological differences between the ten groups employed in this case study, then artefacts will be assigned with a low percentage (e.g. 50 per cent accuracy). It should be noted that the figure of 50 per cent correct classification is highly conservative, since prior probability of assigning an artefact to its correct group by chance alone is only one in ten (i.e. 10 per cent). The analyses were undertaken in SPSS v.12.0.1. Figure 1 shows the results of the discriminant function analysis: 72.8 per cent of original grouped cases were correctly classified to their locality. Hence, this analysis suggests that the Acheulean samples employed here contain morphometric information that allows handaxes at different sites to be identified in over 70 per cent of cases; at least 60 per cent above probability. Such results are inconsistent with any suggestion that the Acheulean samples are highly homogeneous. It is particularly interesting to note the distinct separation of the African localities (positively loading) from the non-African localities (negatively loading) on DF 1, suggestive of some degree of regional patterning to the morphometric data. Likewise on DF 2, in terms of the non-African material, the assemblages are arranged along the discriminant function in an order suggestive of regional differentiation, with European localities loading lowest, followed by the Asian specimens, followed by those from the Levant. Such regional patterning would be hard to

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

301

Figure 1 Results of DFA of sixty morphometric variables for n ¼ 255 handaxes with 72.8 per cent of original grouped cases correctly classified to locality. Differences between centroids are highly significant (Wilks’ Lambda ¼ 0.22, df ¼ 504, p  0.0001) on DF 1. The eight variables most highly correlated (respectively) with DF 1 were variables 32, 43, 33, 41, 42, 31, 44, 40 and 54 (see Table 2 for descriptions). Hence, variables around the ‘tip’ and ‘butt’ midline of the handaxes appear to be most important in separating the African from the non-African assemblages on DF 1. (ATPKM ¼ Attirampakkam; see Table 1 for further details of site locations and raw material.)

account for entirely on the basis of raw material given the samples employed here (Table 1), since the African assemblages represent a range of different raw materials including chert, igneous and mixed combinations of raw material, while on DF 2 the two European (chert) assemblages are separated from the two Levantine assemblages (also chert) by the two Asian assemblages made from an entirely different raw material (quartzite). Moreover, note that, due to the scaling (size-adjustment) procedures employed, this distinction is not one merely of size (e.g. ‘large’ African handaxes versus ‘small’ nonAfrican handaxes), but one of actual shape variations. The geographical proximity of Tabun (Israel) and Bezez (Lebanon), as well as probable temporal proximity of these assemblages (Bar Yosef 1998), supports the suggestion that the regional groupings detected are also reflecting cultural proximities. This may imply that distinct regional shape preferences, or the socially transmitted techniques of manufacture that ultimately lead to shape variations, differ between the broad geographic regions as shown in the DFA. Equally, however, it is evident from Figure 1 that there are large overlaps between the groups, even though the algorithm of DFA is designed to find axes of variation that

302

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

minimize within-group variation and maximize between-group variation. Such overlap might suggest that handaxe variability between different assemblages, and even regions, is ‘clinal’ in nature rather than strictly typological (i.e. defined by the presence and absence of particular ‘types’). Although there are important (and potentially statistically significant) differences between measures of central tendency in terms of artefact form, there is a large range of potential variation around given measures of mean variation, thus leading to large degrees of overlap between different assemblages and regions. It is useful if such findings can be replicated and tested by other means, somewhat independently. Although one problem with Acheulean studies is the lack of agreed protocols for measurements, we can turn that to experimental advantage by conducting a parallel analysis, using another wide-ranging dataset this time based on Isaac’s (1977) system of measurements. Although fewer measurements per biface are employed in this second analysis (n ¼ 9), the dataset embraces the same number of sites, generally with larger numbers (total n ¼ 799 artefacts) (Table 3). Again, there is a spread of African sites and European material from Spain. The Kariandusi sites offer a common focus in the two datasets. Figure 2 shows the results of this second DFA. Once more we find evidence that the DFA separates sites geographically along the second discriminant function, with the European localities close together and well separated from all the African samples. As in the previous analysis, raw material does not appear to be the primary vector responsible for the separation of African from non-African material given the overlap in raw material categories (notably quartzite) in the assemblages employed from these regions (Table 3).

An Acheulean tradition east of the Movius Line? A further and more controversial focus of discussion concerns the geographic distribution of the Acheulean in the Far East (Clark 1994; Dennell 2004; Gamble and Marshall 2001; Keates 2002; Norton et al. 2006; Schick 1994; Yi and Clark 1983). Here we examine the issue in the light of the points made above. Famously, Movius (1948) claimed that strong evidence for an Acheulean tradition in the form of distinct ‘handaxe’ assemblages is absent in eastern Asia, and that non-bifacial technologies (e.g. polyhedrons, ‘choppers’ and flake Table 3 The ten Acheulean localities, sample sizes and raw materials employed in DF analysis 2 Locality Kilombe, Kenya Kapthurin, Kenya Kariandusi (Upper), Kenya Kariandusi (Lower), Kenya Sidi Abderrahman Cunette, Morocco Sidi Abderrahman STIC, Morocco Kalambo Falls (B4), Tanzania Kalambo Falls A6, Tanzania San Isidro, Spain Pinedo, Spain

n 97 40 54 73 128 273 24 45 45 20

Raw material Lava (trachyphonolite/trachyte) Lava (basalt) Obsidian Lava (trachyte) Quartzite Quartzite Quartzite/sandstone Quartzite/sandstone Flint/quartzite Quartzite

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

303

Figure 2 Results of discriminant function analysis using Isaac’s (1977) biface measurement scheme. Note the separation of the two European (Spanish) sites from the African material on function 2, in a manner consistent with the results of the previous analysis.

tools) continued to be made long after distinct Acheulean assemblages appeared in many western regions of the Palaeolithic Old World. Subsequently, the geographic demarcation line between the lithic industries of East and Southeast Asia and the Acheulean industries to the west became known as the ‘Movius Line’. More recently, discoveries of ‘handaxe-like’ artefacts in China and Korea have led several workers to question the validity of a robust Movius Line (Gamble and Marshall 2001; Hou et al. 2000; Yi and Clark 1983). The resemblance of these ‘handaxes’ to those from classic Acheulean assemblages, however, has been debated. Their possibly different set of morphological features (i.e. degree of bifacial knapping, profile form, thickness) has led many to question the technological comparability of these artefacts to conventional Acheulean bifaces (Corvinus 2004; Pope and Keates 1994; Schick 1994). Indeed, looking at length, width and thickness measurements of ‘handaxe-like’ artefacts from the Imjin/ Hantan River basins (Korea) and comparing them with bifaces from Acheulean sites in the Hungsi and Baichbal valleys (India) and from Olorgesailie (Kenya), Norton et al. (2006) found statistically significant differences in the mean thickness of the Korean material compared with selected samples from India and Kenya. In addition, several authors (e.g. Chauhan 2004; Norton et al. 2006; Petraglia 2006; Pope and Keates 1994) have emphasized the stark contrasts in the distribution density of sites from which bifacial artefacts have been recovered in East Asia, compared with regions west of the Movius

304

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Line. As Norton et al. concluded recently, ‘if a map of East Asian Paleolithic sites were drawn, the conspicuous lack of biface-bearing sites in East Asia is still prominent, despite over 80 years of paleoanthropological research in this region of the Old World’ (2006: 534). These factors led Norton et al. (2006) to conclude that the concept of a Movius Line sensu stricto (i.e. complete absence of bifaces) could no longer be upheld, but that artefact numbers, site densities and – importantly – the overall form of East Asian ‘handaxes’, all considered in combination, still gave support to a version of the Movius Line sensu lato. In explanation of this contentious picture, Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel (2008) have suggested that the ephemeral presence of ‘handaxe-like’ artefacts east of the Movius Line is consistent with a combination of dispersal factors and low effective population sizes. Specifically, the effective population sizes of hominins may have become stretched due to long-distance dispersals and repeated founder effects (serial bottlenecking), resulting ultimately in a situation where the efficient social transmission of handaxe manufacturing skills was inhibited due to small effective population sizes (see also Lycett 2007b). Such factors may operate in conjunction with, or independently of, geographic ‘bottlenecks’ (cf. Schick 1994) and ecological parameters affecting population densities. Somewhat similar factors have been considered for the British Clactonian (Mithen 1994). If this happened in East Asia, it would be consistent with the more sporadic appearance of less technologically elaborated bifaces in the form of (fleeting) convergencies. The distinction between a Movius Line sensu stricto and a Movius Line sensu lato might thus hinge on the extent to which finds in East Asia represent a genuine tradition in the Acheulean, comparable to that in the west. That factor may be more important than the simple basis of biface presence/ absence per se. Before a final conclusion can be given on the Acheulean in the Far East, it may be desirable to look further at the variation within the main Acheulean world, as, for example, in the Brittany Colombanian or in the Italian sequence at Notarchirico, in both of which the presence and absence of bifaces is highly unpredictable.

Measuring up the Acheulean The length, width and thickness measurements examined by Norton et al. (2006) can be seen as key aspects in the variation of biface form, although not the full picture. Indeed, an essential point about the three-dimensional reality of bifaces is that they are multivariate, having a minimum number of characteristics that must be managed during manufacture (Gowlett 2006). Controlling several variables at once is technologically more challenging than dealing with only a single variable. There is also a conceptual correlation between handling numbers of variables during artefact manufacture and operating several levels (orders) of intentionality, as studied by psychologists (Gowlett in press). Different levels of intentionality reflect relative degrees of insight and overview, where handling several orders of intentionality (I think he says that you think, etc.) presents heavy cognitive load (Kinderman et al. 1998). This makes artefacts valuable for evaluating the complexity of behaviour shared through cultural means. At a minimum level, three primary dimensions that require manipulation during the manufacture of a biface are length, width and thickness.

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

305

In addition to factors such as raw material discussed above, variations in individual style on the part of handaxe manufacturers might also lead to intra-assemblage variation. Sackett (1982) defines style as the variability brought about by choosing to make an artefact in one particular way, rather than in other possible ways. In this sense, anything that is functionally determined is regarded as complementary to style; equally style extends to the choice of ways of approaching function (Gowlett 1996, in press). Here we use the variability demonstrated in the datasets used by Norton et al. (2006) and ourselves to take a further look at certain aspects of biface technology east and west of the Movius Line in such terms. In contrast to most approaches that use measures of central tendency (i.e. arithmetic means) to compare the assemblages, we have sought a straightforward analysis that makes it easy to look at patterns of overall variability in the three key variables of length, width and thickness. So as to explore the variability in relative terms, we use a descriptive statistic known as the coefficient of variation (CV). The CV is simply the standard deviation of a range of values divided by the mean of those values (Sokal and Rohlf 1995: 57–9). It is convenient to multiply the computed CV by 100 in order to express relative degrees of variation as a percentage. The computed CV values of the three assemblages are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that the Korean artefacts (IHRB) are consistently the least variable of the three assemblages in terms of length, width and thickness CV values. Various explanations are possible, but it is striking that width is consistently the least variable trait in all three biface groups, suggesting that control over this variable is particularly important. Indeed, these results are consistent with those of Vaughan (2001) who has previously shown in a range of African, West Asian and European Acheulean handaxes that width tends to vary less than length, which he suggests is consistent with a selective constraint. The length pattern is less consistent. At Olorgesailie Isaac (1969, 1977) observed quite tight control in individual assemblages, but between a possible element of ‘random walk’ in variation, which would lead to considerable differences. Thus the combined Olorgesailie assemblages have a large variance for length, and hence CV. Intriguingly, the Korean specimens appear more constrained, even though they were often collected as individual or rare specimens among large numbers of other artefacts. We might expect that context to accumulate greater variation. As it does not, this may imply that the Korean specimens

Table 4 Mean (mm), SD and computed CV values for IHRB (Korea), Olorgesailie (Kenya) and Hungsi-Baichbal (India) bifaces Length Locality IHRB Olorgesailie Hunsgi-Baichbal

Width

Thickness

n

Mean

SD

CV

Mean

SD

CV

Mean

SD

CV

58 697 352

153.86 161.46 148.99

30.46 41.87 37.39

19.80 25.93 25.10

94.16 93.67 91.94

13.92 19.59 21.44

14.78 20.91 23.32

60.19 41.56 44.30

12.92 10.13 10.53

21.47 24.37 23.77

Notes IHRB ¼ Imjin/Hantan River basins (Korea); SD ¼ standard deviation; CV ¼ coefficient of variation. Mean and SD data for Olorgesailie and Hungsi-Baichbal from Noll and Petraglia (2003); data for IHRB from Norton et al. (2006).

306

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

had some specialist function which placed more demanding constraints on the form of the tool. However, there are some differences in the patterns of variability in the Korean bifaces compared with the two western sites, notably in the fact that length is the most variable trait in the Kenyan and Indian bifaces, whereas thickness is the most variable in the IHRB material. Looking further at length CV values, it is possible to use a non-parametric statistical procedure (see Appendix) and demonstrate that, compared with the length CV of the IHRB bifaces, those from Olorgesailie (D’AD ¼ 5.41, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.02) and the Hungsi and Baichbal valleys (D’AD ¼ 4.15, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.042) have significantly (a ¼ 0.05) greater length CV values compared to the Korean material. However, when the two western biface groups are compared with each other, there is no significant difference between length CV values (D’AD ¼ 0.44, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.51). The significantly greater variability in length CV values of the Indian and African assemblages, in combination with their significantly lower mean thickness, as reported by Norton et al. (2006), implies a greater degree of overall shaping applied to the western bifaces. Quite possibly the contrast is between bifaces that were worked around most of the circumference (and in which the acute edge angle was important) and Korean specimens that were thick and blunt-edged, rather like the Sangoan picks of Africa (Clark and Kleindienst 2001). As noted above, Sackett (1982) has seen style as complementary to function. Here the differences – including the greater length range – would have functional significance, but also a greater stylistic component would be necessary to manage the wider range of forms. However, despite the greater extent of this imposed modification and stylistic variability, hominins at Olorgesailie and the Hungsi and Baichbal valleys were still able to constrain and standardize relative levels of width variability, such that this is the least varying of any of the three primary dimensions considered here. Conversely, the relatively low CV values of length, width and thickness measurements in the Korean artefacts also suggest that IHRB hominins selected rather standardized nodules (see also photographs in Norton et al. 2006) in order that functional tools be produced with minimal knapping, and that the relative standardization in all three variables is a function of raw material (nodule size) consistency. This indicates that, although width is the least variable dimension in all three assemblages, the processes by which hominins constrained width variability differs in the case of the Korean material compared to that from Olorgesailie and the Hungsi and Baichbal valleys. Conventionally, the Acheulean as seen in western portions of the Old World may be defined by the presence of the technologically elaborated imposition of a long axis on artefact form by means of bifacial working. This pattern occurs in a fairly continuous way from Britain to South Africa and from Spain to India. In terms of the Movius Line debate, our initial analyses support Norton et al.’s (2006) hypothesis that the ‘handaxe-like’ objects present in Korea show real technological differences from some ‘classic’ Acheulean assemblages. It remains to be seen whether they can be distinguished so clearly from some of the other Acheulean variants around the world. These differences appear to relate to the extent of elaboration and the overall degree of shaping, and thus ‘style’ (sensu Sackett), imposed by individual knappers. Hence, automatic inclusion of the Korean bifaces within the conventional Acheulean technological tradition(s) visible in the west – despite some obvious superficial similarities – remains a matter for further (comparative) research.

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

307

Discussion Unity, diversity and cultural transmission There is both a unity and a diversity to patterns in the Lower Palaeolithic (Gowlett 1998), well expressed in Isaac’s ‘variable sameness’ (1977). This contradiction is particularly applicable in the case of the Acheulean, especially with regard to its quintessential marker, the ‘handaxe’. There are basic general patterns in the Bauplan (i.e. essential elements of form and, presumably, concept) of Acheulean handaxes that appear to hold over wide periods of time and geographic space (Gowlett 1984, 1996; Mithen 1999), and yet within such apparent monotony there are variations that create distinct patterns of diversity (Fig. 1). What are we to make of such a paradox? Handaxes were ultimately tools manufactured to perform functional tasks. Conformity of tool form to a basic Bauplan over large tracts of time in space could be seen as evidence for strong functional constraints (Gowlett 2006) and/or convergence in Acheulean handaxes under cultural influence (e.g. McBrearty 2003). Indeed, some debates regarding the significance of variability in Palaeolithic artefacts have been undertaken in terms of distinct contrasts between ‘functional’ and ‘stylistic’ interpretations. However, as Sackett (1982) has noted, strict divisions between functional and stylistic parameters are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Our analysis of regional handaxe variability (Fig. 1) demonstrated large areas of overlap in the form of handaxes from different sites and regions, yet also provided evidence that distinct patterns may appear at very broad geographic levels (e.g. Europe vs. Africa). While the boundaries of style in artefacts such as Lower Palaeolithic handaxes may be rather subtle, it should not be presupposed that important distinctions cannot be identified, even if only at these broad levels. Where distinct contrasts within these ‘stylistic’ boundaries are identified, as in our comparative analysis of patterns of variability in ‘handaxes’ east and west of the Movius Line, such contrasts may indicate differences of tradition, at least in terms of socially transmitted information and ideas. Unlike genetic transmission, social transmission may take place via several distinct lines of transmission, all with potential effects on behavioural and, ultimately, archaeological patterning. Figure 3 illustrates a model produced by Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981), which predicts links between four modes of cultural transmission and patterns of (behavioural) variability in terms of within-group variability, relative acceptance of innovations, relative rates of cultural evolution and the stability of cultural traits over time and space. Using this model and the results of our analyses of inter-regional variability in handaxe form described above (Fig. 1), it is possible to propose further hypotheses regarding the nature of social transmission within the Acheulean. The ‘horizontal’ and ‘one-to-many’ modes of cultural transmission both suggest that an acceptance of innovation will be relative easy and that rates of cultural evolution will be relatively high. But neither of these features appears applicable in describing the Acheulean (Mithen 1999). Hence, only two particular modes of cultural transmission, as characterized by Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981), stand out as probable contenders for describing the means by which handaxe manufacturing skills were socially transmitted within Acheulean populations. ‘Vertical

308

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Figure 3 Modes and outcomes of cultural transmission processes (modified after Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981).

transmission’ (parent-to-offspring) predicts slower rates of cultural evolution and so might be seen as consistent with the relatively slow pace of innovation that seems to characterize Acheulean technologies. However, this mode of transmission is also consistent with high levels of variations between groups and a moderate acceptance of innovation. Although our analysis of regional handaxe form variability was suggestive of extremely broad regional groupings (Fig. 1), the extent of overlap was considerable and thus the data do not indicate the high levels of inter-group variation that appear characteristic of dominantly parent-to-offspring transmission. Interestingly, following a chimpanzee model, it has been assumed by various authors that the dominant mode of social transmission among Acheulean populations, if not the Pleistocene in general, was vertical (i.e. parent-to-offspring) in nature (Mithen 1994; Shennan and Steele 1999). Their view contrasts with that of Isaac (1972) who saw neighbouring Acheulean traditions as fairly open to one another through the presumed absence of strong linguistic boundaries. Somewhat in consonance with this, a ‘many-toone mode’ of transmission – in which elder members of the group transmit information to younger individuals in a more general manner than strict parent-to-offspring transmission – is consistent with extremely low levels of innovation, extremely slow rates of cultural evolution and low levels of variation between groups. MacDonald (1998) has suggested that this mode of transmission might characterize the social transmission of skills and ideas associated with Folsom points among the Palaeo-Indian foragers in the northern Plains of North America. In his view, the conservative nature of this technology across a relatively large chronological span (c. 1000 years) and across a broad geographic region is consistent with many-to-one transmission. In terms of conservatism across time and space, the Acheulean might almost be seen as a hugely exaggerated version of the Folsom pattern. In this way we could argue for a reconciliation between the analysis of

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

309

McNabb et al. (2004), which suggested limited evidence of clear differences between assemblages at the intra-regional level, and our own analyses showing support for regional trends at extremely broad geographical levels. That is, a many-to-one system could have operated as the dominant mode of social transmission within Acheulean populations, at least in terms of the specific skills and ideas associated with handaxe manufacture. Where variations of tradition are identified, we emphasize that neither the existence of distinct ‘mental templates’ nor even conscious choice on the part of handaxe manufacturers need be implied. Recently much attention has focused on the concept that the combination of individual variation and social transmission will have implications for patterns of cultural variability through demographic parameters (i.e. population size, density and interconnectedness) as in the case of population genetics (Henrich 2004; Lycett 2007b; Lycett and von Cramon-Taubadel 2008; Neiman 1995; Shennan 2006). Indeed, some time ago, Isaac (1972) invoked the concept of ‘drift’ to explain potential differences in Pleistocene assemblages. Hence, if consistencies of variation in time or space are identified, such patterns may be the product of stochastic processes, especially those that influence demographic structure, interacting with functional needs. A biological parallel Finally, we conclude that further lessons might be drawn from biology so as to make sense of the apparent paradox in Acheulean assemblages. Alluding to a general pattern of stasis and general consistency of form may be taken to imply that little meaningful variation exists (however defined) in regard to the evolution of distinct traditional elements within a phenomenon such as the ‘Acheulean’. However, consider a biological taxonomic group such as the papionin tribe of Old World monkeys (i.e. the group containing some twenty-three species of macaques, baboons, mandrills, drills and mangabeys). At one level, there is much to hold this catarrhine group of Old World monkeys together in terms of general adaptive features, feeding behaviour, anatomy, etc. (Jolly 2001). Yet, equally, the range of diversity, variety and evolution that has emerged within this group does not prevent the recognition of distinct sub-elements that require study in their own terms. It should be noted that the diversification of lineages in this manner does not necessarily imply adaptational (i.e. functional) mechanisms of diversification only (Marroig and Cheverud 2004). While it is perhaps unwise to push the biological taxonomic analogy too far, such complexity of taxonomy and terminology may be applicable to archaeological entities such as the Acheulean, which – in somewhat different terms – appear to show similar paradoxical elements of unity and diversity in terms of tradition. Our fundamental question in this paper was whether the Acheulean represents a single tradition. Our analyses have shown something of its complexity, which is not surprising given its great extents in space and time. However, in all our analyses we see no signs of fundamental divergences from the essential Bauplan – no indication that there were distinctly different phenomena centred on other packages of ideas. The variation is thus clinal, without essential discontinuity, and we see the Acheulean as a tradition in the sense that its essential ideas were handed over from tool-maker to tool-maker over an exceptionally long period.

310

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Acknowledgements Research for this paper was carried out within the British Academy Centenary Research Project, Lucy to Language. SJL is indebted to Christopher Norton and Parth Chauhan for valuable conversations and correspondence in relation to the issues discussed here and to the British Academy for financial support. JAJG is grateful to the British Academy–CSIC Links Project for its support in the study of bifaces from Pinedo and San Isidro, to the Museum of Toledo, the Madrid Municipal Museum and to Ignacio de la Torre. Both of us appreciated thorough and helpful comments on the manuscript from Robin Osborne and the anonymous reviewers.

British Academy Centenary Research Project, SACE, University of Liverpool

Appendix The D’AD statistical procedure was originally introduced as a means of testing for significant differences in CV values of patient response during clinical trials (Feltz and Miller 1996). The procedure has subsequently been re-described by Eerkens and Bettinger (2001), but it has not yet seen widespread application in archaeological settings. The D’AD statistic may be computed as:   2  Pk sj Pk sj mj  m  D j xj j¼1 j¼1 xj D0 AD ¼ ; where D ¼ Pk D2 ð0:5 þ D2 Þ j¼1 mj Where, k is the number of samples, j is an index referring to the sample number, nj is the sample size of the jth population, mj ¼ (nj71), sj is the standard deviation of the jth population and x is the mean of the jth population. In order to determine significant (a ¼ 0.05) differences between computed CV values, the resulting D’AD statistic is compared against a w2 distribution with k–1 degrees of freedom.

References Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Suwa, G., Walter, R. C., White, T. D., WoldeGabriel, G. and Yemane, T. 1992. The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula. Nature, 360: 732–5. Ashton, N. and McNabb, J. 1994. Bifaces in perspective. In Stories in Stone: Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper No. 4 (eds N. Ashton and A. David). London: Lithic Studies Society, pp. 182–91. Bar-Yosef, O. 1998. The chronology of the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant. In Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia (eds T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. Bar-Yosef). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 39–56.

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

311

Biro, D., Inoue-Nakamura, N., Tonooka, R., Yamakoshi, G., Sousa, C. and Matsuzawa, T. 2003. Cultural innovation and transmission of tool use in wild chimpanzees: evidence from field experiments. Animal Cognition, 6: 213–23. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. W. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chauhan, P. R. 2004. A review of the early Acheulian evidence from south Asia. Assemblage, 8. Available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/issue8/chauhan.html. Clark, J. D. 1994. The Acheulian industrial complex in Africa and elsewhere. In Integrative Paths to the Past (eds R. S. Corruccini and R. L. Ciochon). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 451–69. Clark, J. D. and Kleindienst, M. R. 2001. The Stone Age cultural sequence: terminology, typology and raw material. In Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site, Vol. 3 (ed. J. D. Clark). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–65. Corvinus, G. 2004. Homo erectus in East and Southeast Asia, and the questions of the age of the species and its association with stone artifacts, with special reference to handaxe-like tools. Quaternary International, 117: 141–51. Crompton, R. H. and Gowlett, J. A. J. 1993. Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 25: 175–99. Darlas, A. 1994. Le Pale´olithique infe´rieur et moyen de Gre`ce. L’Anthropologie, 98: 305–28. Dennell, R. W. 2004. Hominid dispersal and Asian biogeography during the Lower and early Middle Pleistocene. Asian Perspectives, 43: 205–26. Dunbar, R. I. M. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. London: Faber. Eerkens, J. W. and Bettinger, R. L. 2001. Techniques for assessing standardization in artifact assemblages: can we scale variability? American Antiquity, 66: 493–504. Eerkens, J. W. and Lipo, C. P. 2007. Cultural transmission theory and the archaeological record: context to understanding variation and temporal changes in material culture. Journal of Archaeological Research, 15: 239–74. Feltz, C. J. and Miller, G. E. 1996. An asymptoptic test for the equality of coefficients of variation from k populations. Statistic in Medicine, 15: 647–58. Gamble, C. and Marshall, G. 2001. The shape of handaxes, the structure of the Acheulian world. In A Very Remote Period Indeed: Papers on the Palaeolithic Presented to Derek Roe (eds S. Milliken and J. Cook). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 19–27. Goren-Inbar, N. and Sharon, G. (eds) 2006. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard. London: Equinox. Gowlett, J. A. J. 1984. Mental abilities of early man: a look at some hard evidence. In Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology (ed. R. A. Foley). London: Academic Press, pp. 167–92. Gowlett, J. A. J. 1996. Mental abilities of early Homo: elements of constraint and choice in rule systems. In Modelling the Early Human Mind (eds P. Mellars and K. Gibson). Cambridge: McDonald Institute, pp. 191–215. Gowlett, J. A. J. 1998. Unity and diversity in the early stone age. In Stone Age Archaeology: Essays in Honour of John Wymer (eds N. Ashton, F. Healy and P. Pettitt). Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 59–66. Gowlett, J. A. J. 2006. The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard (eds N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon). London: Equinox, pp. 203–21. Gowlett, J. A. J. In press. Shared intention in early artefacts: an exploration of deep structure and implications for communication and language. In Proceedings of the African Genesis Conference (eds S. C. Reynolds and C. G. Menter). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press.

312

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Gowlett, J. A. J. and Crompton, R. H. 1994. Kariandusi: Acheulean morphology and the question of allometry. The African Archaeological Review, 12: 3–42. Henrich, J. 2004. Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural processes can produce maladaptive losses – the Tasmanian case. American Antiquity, 69: 197–214. Hou, Y., Potts, R., Baoyin, Y., Zhengtang, G., Deino, A., Wei, W., Clark, J., Guangmao, X. and Weiwen, H. 2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin, South China. Science, 287: 1622–6. Isaac, G. Ll. 1969. Studies of early culture in East Africa. World Archaeology, 1: 1–28. Isaac, G. Ll. 1972. Chronology and the tempo of cultural change during the Pleistocene. In Calibration of Hominoid Evolution (eds W. W. Bishop and J. A. Miller). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, pp. 381–430. Isaac, G. Ll. 1977. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Isaac, G. Ll. 1986. Foundation stones: early artefacts as indicators of activities and abilities. In Stone Age Prehistory (eds G. N. Bailey and P. Callow). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221– 41. Jolly, C. J. 2001. A proper study for mankind: analogies from the papionin monkeys and their implications for human evolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44: 177–204. Jungers, W. L., Falsetti, A. B. and Wall, C. E. 1995. Shape, relative size, and size adjustments in morphometrics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 38: 137–61. Keates, S. G. 2002. The Movius Line: fact or fiction? Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 22: 17–24. Kinderman, P., Dunbar, R. I. M. and Bentall, R. P. 1998. Theory-of-mind deficits and causal attributions. British Journal of Psychology, 89: 191–204. de Lumley, H. In prep. Les Bifaces et l’emergence du sens d’harmonie, Proceedings of the International Colloquium at Tautavel, May 2007. Lycett, S. J. 2007a. Is the Soanian techno-complex a Mode 1 or Mode 3 phenomenon? A morphometric assessment. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34: 1434–40. Lycett, S. J. 2007b. Why is there a lack of Mode 3 Levallois technologies in East Asia? A phylogenetic test of the Movius-Schick hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26: 541– 75. Lycett, S. J. and von Cramon-Taubadel, N. 2008. Acheulean variability and hominin dispersals: a model-bound approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35: 553–62. Lycett, S. J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N. and Foley, R. A. 2006. A crossbeam co-ordinate caliper for the morphometric analysis of lithic nuclei: a description, test and empirical examples of application. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33: 847–61. Lycett, S. J., Collard, M. and McGrew, W. C. 2007. Phylogenetic analyses of behavior support existence of culture among wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104: 17588–92. MacDonald, D. H. 1998. Subsistence, sex, and cultural transmission in Folsom culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17: 217–39. Marroig, G. and Cheverud, J. M. 2004. Did natural selection or genetic drift produce the cranial diversification of neotropical monkeys? American Naturalist, 163: 417–28. Matsuzawa, T., Biro, D., Humle, T., Inoue-Nakamura, N., Tonooka, R. and Yamakoshi, G. 2001. Emergence of culture in wild chimpanzees: education by master-apprenticeship. In Primate Origins of Human Cognition and Behavior (ed. T. Matsuzawa). London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 557–74.

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

313

McBrearty, S. 2003. Patterns of technological change at the origin of Homo sapiens. Before Farming, 3: 1–5. McGrew, W. C. 1992. Chimpanzee Material Culture: Implications for Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGrew, W. C. 2004. The Cultured Chimpanzee: Reflections on Cultural Primatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McNabb, J., Binyon, F. and Hazelwood, L. 2004. The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions. Current Anthropology, 45: 653–77. McPherron, S. P. 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27: 655–63. McPherron, S. P. 2006. What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard (eds N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon). London: Equinox, pp. 267–85. Mithen, S. 1994. Technology and society during the Middle Pleistocene: hominid group size, social learning and industrial variability. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 4: 3–32. Mithen, S. 1996. Social learning and cultural tradition: interpreting Early Palaeolithic technology. In The Archaeology of Human Ancestry: Power, Sex and Tradition (eds J. Steele and S. Shennan). London: Routledge, pp. 207–29. Mithen, S. 1999. Imitation and cultural change: a view from the Stone Age, with specific reference to the manufacture of handaxes. In Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives (eds H. O. Box and K. R. Gibson). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 389–99. Movius, H. L. 1948. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 38: 329–426. Neiman, F. D. 1995. Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective: inferences from decorative diversity and interassemblage distance in Illinois Woodland ceramic assemblages. American Antiquity, 60: 7–36. Noll, M. P. and Petraglia, M. D. 2003. Acheulean bifaces and early human behavioral patterns in East Africa and South India. In Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies (eds M. Soressi and H. L. Dibble). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 31–53. Norton, C. J., Bae, K., Harris, J. W. K. and Lee, H. 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Human Evolution, 51: 527–36. Petraglia, M. D. 2006. The Indian Acheulian in global perspective. In Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard (eds N. Goren-Inbar and G. Sharon). London: Equinox, pp. 389–414. Pope, G. G. and Keates, S. G. 1994. The evolution of human cognition and cultural capacity: a view from the Far East. In Integrative Paths to the Past (eds R. S. Corruccini and R. L. Ciochon). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 531–67. Reist, J. D. 1985. An empirical evaluation of several univariate methods that adjust for size variation in morphometric data. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 31: 113–35. Roche, H. and Kibunjia, M. 1994. Les sites arche´ologiques plio-ple´istoce`nes de la Formation de Nachukui, West Turkana, Kenya. Comptes Rendus de l’Acade´mie des Sciences de Paris, 318 (se´rie II): 1145–51. Roe, D. A. 1964. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: some problems, methods of study and preliminary results. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 30: 245–67. Roe, D. 1976. Typology and the trouble with handaxes. In Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology (eds G. de G. Sieveking, I. H. Longworth and K. E. Wilson). London: Duckworth, pp. 61–70.

314

Stephen J. Lycett and John A. J. Gowlett

Sackett, J. R. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 1: 59–112. Schick, K. D. 1994. The Movius line reconsidered. In Integrative Paths to the Past (eds R. S. Corruccini and R. L. Ciochon). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 569–96. Schild, R. and Wendorf, F. 1977. The Prehistory of Dakhla Oasis and Adjacent Desert. Wroclaw: Polska Akademia Nauk Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej. Shennan, S. 2006. From cultural history to cultural evolution: an archaeological perspective on social information transmission. In Social Information Transmission and Human Biology (eds J. C. K. Wells, S. Strickland and K. Laland). New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. 173–89. Shennan, S. J. and Steele, J. 1999. Cultural learning in hominids: a behavioural ecological approach. In Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives (eds H. O. Box and K. R. Gibson). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 367–88. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edn. New York: W.H. Freeman. Stout, D. 2005. The social and cultural context of stone knapping skill acquisition. In Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour (eds V. Roux and B. Bril). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 331–40. Tattersall, I., Delson, E. and Van Couvering, J. 1988. Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory. New York: Garland. van Schaik, C. P., Ancrenaz, M., Borgen, G., Galdikas, B., Knott, C. D., Singleton, I., Suzuki, A., Utami, S. S. and Merrill, M. 2003. Orangutan cultures and the evolution of material culture. Science, 299: 102–5. Vaughan, C. D. 2001. A million years of style and function: regional and temporal variation in Acheulean handaxes. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology (eds T. D. Hurt and G. F. M. Rakita). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, pp. 141–63. White, M. J. 1998. On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 64: 15–44. Whiten, A. 1999. The evolution of deep social mind in humans. In The Descent of Mind: Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution (eds M. C. Corballis and S. E. G. Lea). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–93. Whiten, A. 2005. The second inheritance system of chimpanzees and humans. Nature, 437: 52–5. Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W. C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., Tutin, C. E. G., Wrangham, R. W. and Boesch, C. 1999. Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature, 399: 682–5. Wynn, T. 1995. Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology, 27: 10–24. Wynn, T. 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25: 389–402. Wynn, T. and Tierson, F. 1990. Regional comparison of the shapes of later Acheulean handaxes. American Anthropologist, 92: 73–84. Yi, S. and Clark, G. A. 1983. Observations on the Lower Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology, 24: 181–202.

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

315

John A. J. Gowlett has been working on aspects of the Acheulean for more than thirty years. His site investigations include Kilombe, Chesowanja and Kariandusi in Kenya and Beeches Pit in England. He has also measured biface collections from other areas including North Africa and Spain, and is especially interested in the interplay between design components and natural constraints in early artefacts. He is one of the directors of the British Academy Centenary Project, Lucy to Language. Stephen J. Lycett is a post-doctoral fellow of the British Academy’s Centenary Research Project, Lucy to Language. His research interests span areas traditionally encompassed by biological anthropology, Palaeolithic archaeology and palaeoanthropology. He has published on a broad range of issues including lithic analysis, hominin dispersals, hominin phylogenetics, chimpanzee cultural behaviour and species identification in the fossil record.