Article | Published:

Two million years of flaking stone and the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology

Nature Ecology & Evolutionvolume 2pages628633 (2018) | Download Citation

Abstract

Temporal variability in flaking stone has been used as one of the currencies for hominin behavioural and biological evolution. This variability is usually traced through changes in artefact forms and techniques of production, resulting overall in unilineal and normative models of hominin adaptation. Here, we focus on the fundamental purpose of flaking stone—the production of a sharp working edge—and model this behaviour over evolutionary time to reassess the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology. Using more than 19,000 flakes from 81 assemblages spanning two million years, we show that greater production of sharp edges was followed by increased variability in this behaviour. We propose that a diachronic increase in this variability was related to a higher intensity of interrelations between different behaviours involving the use and management of stone resources that gave fitness advantages in particular environmental contexts. The long-term trends identified in this study inform us that the evolutionary efficiency of stone tool technology was not inherently in advanced tool forms and production techniques, but emerged within the contingencies of hominin interaction with local environments.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Semaw, S. et al. 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385, 333–336 (1997).

  2. 2.

    Harmand, S. et al. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya. Nature 521, 310–315 (2015).

  3. 3.

    Zink, K. D. & Liebermann, D. E. Impact of meat and Lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans. Nature 531, 500–503 (2016).

  4. 4.

    Dominguez-Rodrigo, M. & Pickering, T. R. The meat of the matter: an evolutionary perspective on human carnivory. Azania Archaeol. Res. Afr. 52, 4–32 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Blumenschine, R. J. & Pobiner, B. L. in Evolution of the Human Diet: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable (ed. Ungar, P.) 167–190 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2007).

  6. 6.

    Morgan, T. J. H. et al. Experimental evidence for the co-evolution of hominin tool-making teaching and language. Nat. Commun. 6, 6029 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Nonaka, T., Bril, B. & Rein, R. How do stone knappers predict and control the outcome of flaking? Implications for understanding early stone tool technology. J. Hum. Evol. 59, 155–167 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Stout, D. Stone tool making and the evolution of human culture and cognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 1050–1059 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Ambrose, S. H. Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291, 1748–1753 (2001).

  10. 10.

    Shea, J. J. Lithic modes A—I: a new framework for describing global-scale variation in stone too technology illustrated with evidence from the east Mediterranean Levant. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 20, 151–186 (2013).

  11. 11.

    Clark, G World Prehistory: A New Synthesis. (Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, 1969).

  12. 12.

    Foley, R. A. & Lahr, M. M. On stony ground: lithic technology, human evolution, and the emergence of culture. Evol. Anthropol. 12, 109–122 (2003).

  13. 13.

    Brown, K. S. et al. An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa. Nature 491, 590–593 (2012).

  14. 14.

    Lombard, M. & Phillipson, L. Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64,000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Antiquity 84, 635–648 (2010).

  15. 15.

    Binford, L. R. & O’Connell, J. F. An Alyawara day: the stone quarry. J. Anthropol. Res. 40, 406–432 (1984).

  16. 16.

    Shott, M. J. & Sillitoe, P. Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 653–663 (2005).

  17. 17.

    Clarkson, C., Haslam, M. & Harris, C. in Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory (eds Goodale, N. & Andrefsky, W.) 117–138 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2015).

  18. 18.

    Lemorini, C. et al. The function of recycled lithic items at late Lower Paleolithic Qesem Cave, Israel: an overview of the use–wear data. Quat. Int. 361, 103–112 (2015).

  19. 19.

    Holdaway, S. J. & Douglass, M. J. A twenty-first century archaeology of stone artifacts. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 19, 101–131 (2012).

  20. 20.

    Dibble, H. L. et al. Major fallacies surrounding stone artifacts and assemblages. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 24, 813–851 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Kuhn, S. L. On planning and curated technologies in the Middle Paleolithic. J. Anthropol. Res. 48, 185–214 (1992).

  22. 22.

    Braun, D. R. & Harris, J. W. K. in Oldowan: Rather More Than Smashing Stones (eds Mora, R. & de la Torre, I.) 132–144 (Univ. Barcelona Press, Barcelona, 2003).

  23. 23.

    Muller, A. & Clarkson, C. Identifying major transitions in the evolution of lithic cutting edge production rates. PLoS ONE 11, e0167244 (2016).

  24. 24.

    Braun, D. R., Plummer, T., Ferraro, J. V., Ditchfield, P. & Bishop, L. C. Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences: evidence from Kanjera South, Kenya. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1605–1614 (2009).

  25. 25.

    Prasciunas, M. M. Bifacial cores and flake production efficiency: an experimental test of technological assumptions. Am. Antiq. 72, 334–348 (2007).

  26. 26.

    Key, A. J. M. & Lycett, S. J. An experimental assessment of flake size variation on cutting efficiency and loading. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 140–146 (2014).

  27. 27.

    Ugan, A., Bright, J. & Rogers, A. When is technology worth the trouble? J. Archaeol. Sci. 30, 1315–1329 (2003).

  28. 28.

    Lin, S. C., Rezek, Z., Braun, D. & Dibble, H. L. On the utility and economization of unretouched flakes: the effects of exterior platform angle and platform depth. Am. Antiq. 78, 724–745 (2013).

  29. 29.

    Dibble, H. L. & Rezek, Z. Introducing a new experimental design for controlled studies of flake formation: results for exterior platform angle, platform depth, angle of blow, velocity, and force. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1945–1954 (2009).

  30. 30.

    Geribàs, N., Mosquera, M. & Vergès, J. M. What novice knappers have to learn to become expert stone toolmakers. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 2857–2870 (2010).

  31. 31.

    Wynn, T., Hernandez-Aguilar, R. A., Marchant, L. F. & McGrew, W. C. ‘An ape’s view of the Oldowan’ revisited. Evol. Anthropol. 20, 181–197 (2011).

  32. 32.

    Schick, K. D. et al. Continuing investigations into the stone tool-making and tool-using capabilities of a bonobo (Pan paniscus). J. Archaeol. Sci. 26, 824–832 (1999).

  33. 33.

    Toth, N. The Oldowan reassessed: a close look at early stone artefacts. J. Archaeol. Sci. 12, 101–120 (1985).

  34. 34.

    Dibble, H. L. & McPherron, S. P. The missing Mousterian. Curr. Anthropol. 47, 777–803 (2006).

  35. 35.

    Tryon, C. A., McBrearty, S. & Texier, P. J. Levallois lithic technology from the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya: Acheulian origin and Middle Stone Age diversity. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 22, 199–229 (2005).

  36. 36.

    Adler, D. S. et al. Early Levallois technology and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition in the Southern Caucasus. Science 345, 1609–1613 (2014).

  37. 37.

    Brantingham, P. J. & Kuhn, S. L. Constraints on Levallois core technology: a mathematical model. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28, 747–761 (2001).

  38. 38.

    Aubry, T. et al. Stratigraphic and technological evidence from the Middle Palaeolithic–Châtelperronian–Aurignacian record at the Bordes–Fitte rockshelter (Roches daAbilly site, central France). J. Hum. Evol. 62, 116–137 (2012).

  39. 39.

    Harrison, R. Kimberley points and colonial preference: new insights into the chronology of pressure flaked point forms from the Southeast Kimberley, Western Australia. Archaeol. Oceania 39, 1–11 (2004).

  40. 40.

    Mourre, V., Villa, P. & Henshilwood, C. S. Early use of pressure flaking on lithic artifacts at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Science 330, 659–662 (2010).

  41. 41.

    Carr, P. J. & Bradbury, A. P. in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning (ed. Andrefsky, W.) 126–146 (Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 2001).

  42. 42.

    Hiscock, P., Turq, A., Faivre, J.-P. & Bourguignon, L. in Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies (eds Adams, B. & Blades, B. S.) 232–246 (Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford, 2009).

  43. 43.

    Stout, D., Quade, J., Semaw, S., Rogers, M. J. & Levin, N. E. Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 365–380 (2005).

  44. 44.

    Beck, C. et al. Rocks are heavy: transport costs and Paleoarchaic quarry behavior in the Great Basin. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21, 481–507 (2002).

  45. 45.

    Dibble, H. L. Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction. J. Field Archaeol. 11, 431–436 (1984).

  46. 46.

    McGuire, K. R. & Hildebrandt, W. R. Re-thinking Great Basin foragers: prestige hunting and costly signaling during the Middle Archaic period. Am. Antiq. 70, 695–712 (2005).

  47. 47.

    Bliege Bird, R., Codding, B. F. & Kramer, K. L. in Why Forage? Hunters and Gatherers in the Twenty-First Century (eds Codding, B. F. & Kramer, K. L.) 213–230 (Univ. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 2016).

  48. 48.

    Stiner, M. & Munro, N. D. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Paleolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece). J. Hum. Evol. 60, 618–636 (2011).

  49. 49.

    Klein, R. G., Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K. & Steele, T. E. The mammalian fauna associated with an archaic hominin skullcap and later Acheulean artifacts at Elandsfontein, Western Cape Province, South Africa. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 164–186 (2007).

  50. 50.

    Bamforth, D. B Ecology and Human Organization on the Great Plains. (Plenum Press: New York, 1988).

  51. 51.

    Debénath, A. & Dibble, H. L. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, Vol. 1: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. (Univ. Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1994).

  52. 52.

    Dibble, H. L., Schurmans, U. A., Ioviţă, R. & McLaughlin, M. V. The measurement and interpretation of cortex in lithic assemblages. Am. Antiq. 70, 545–560 (2005).

  53. 53.

    Lin, S. C., McPherron, S. P. & Dibble, H. L. Establishing statistical confidence in cortex ratios within and among lithic assemblages: a case study of the Middle Paleolithic of southwestern France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 59, 89–109 (2015).

  54. 54.

    R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2015); http://www.r-project.org/

Download references

Acknowledgements

The collection of archaeological data was supported by the National Science Foundation (BCS-1219455, 0602021 and OISE-1358178), The Leakey Foundation, the Alexander Humboldt Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the Service Régional de l’Archéologie (Bordeaux, France) and the Conseil Général (Dordogne, France). We thank the National Museums of Kenya, Heritage Western Cape (South Africa), Musée National de Préhistoire in Les Eyzies and Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris for research permission to analyse these archaeological materials. We also thank B. A. Wood of George Washington University for comments on the first draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

    • Željko Režek
    • , Harold L. Dibble
    • , Shannon P. McPherron
    •  & David R. Braun
  2. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    • Željko Režek
  3. Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    • Harold L. Dibble
  4. Institute of Human Origins, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    • Harold L. Dibble
  5. Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA

    • David R. Braun
  6. Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

    • Sam C. Lin

Authors

  1. Search for Željko Režek in:

  2. Search for Harold L. Dibble in:

  3. Search for Shannon P. McPherron in:

  4. Search for David R. Braun in:

  5. Search for Sam C. Lin in:

Contributions

All authors contributed archaeological data. Ž.R. conducted the statistical analysis of the archaeological data and wrote the paper, with contributions from all authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Željko Režek.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

  2. Life Sciences Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Dataset 1

    Data on length, width, thickness, platform depth, exterior platform angle, and industrial affiliation of measured flakes

  4. Supplementary Dataset 2

    Summary of flake data per archaeological assemblage, including the cortex ratio and the ratio between modified and unmodified artefacts

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0488-4

Further reading