Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:07:01.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Steven Mithen
Steven Mithen*
Affiliation:
*School of Human & Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK (Email: s.j.mithen@rdg.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Evaluating theories and testing hypotheses that relate to the no-longer observable behaviour of hominin species which have no close analogue in the modern world is an obvious challenge. Machin argues that Kohn & Mithen (1999) did not do so in a sufficiently rigorous manner concerning their so-called 'Sexy Handaxe Theory' (SHT). She is right, of course. Indeed how could it be otherwise when there is always room for improvement by subjecting previously published ideas to newly available data-sets and new types of critical thinking. Machin provides some valuable arguments, bringing together a probably unparalleled breadth of knowledge about the archaeological record, evolutionary theory and sexual selection. Ultimately, however, I am not persuaded that she makes handaxes any less sexy than they had previously appeared.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 82 , Issue 317 , September 2008 , pp. 766 - 769
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2008

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

Ashton, N., Lewis, S. G. & Parfitt, S.. 1998. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989-94. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Caspari, R. & Lee, S. H.. 2004. Older age becomes common late in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 10895–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and Language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. 2004. The Human Story. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Durand, A. I., Ipina, S. L. & De Castro, J. M.B.. 2000. A probabilistic approach to the assessment of some life history pattern parameters in a Middle Pleistocene human population. Mathematical Biosciences 165: 147–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Review 7: 184–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Gamble, C. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gowlett, J. A.J. 2006. The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language, in Goran-Inbar, N. & Sharon, G. (ed.) AAxe Age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hallos, J. 2005. ‘15 minutes of fame’: Exploring the temporal dimension of Middle Pleistocene lithic technology. Journal of Human Evolution 49: 155–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. R. 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge, in Leakey, M. D. & Roe, O. A. (ed.) Olduvai Gorge Volume 5: Excavations in beds III, IVand the Masek Beds 1968-1971: 254–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keeley, L.H 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Key, C. A. 1998. Cooperation, paternal care and the evolution of hominin social groups. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithen, S.. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machin, A. J. 2006. The Acheulean Biface: Symmetry, Function and Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominin Behaviour. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Machin, A. J. In press. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability: a multifactorial model. Journal of Social Archaeology.Google Scholar
Machin, A.J., Hosfield, R. T. & Mithen, S. J.. 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 883–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, F.W. 2005. Hunter gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, G. D., Gamble, C. S., Roe, D. A. & Dupplaw, D.. 2002. Acheulian biface database. http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/bifaces/bf_query.cfm.Google Scholar
Mcpherron, S. P. 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 655–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G.F. 1999. Sexual selection for cultural displays, in Dunbar, R., Knight, C. & Power, C. (ed.) The Evolution of Culture: 71–91. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mcpherron, S. P. 2000. The Mating Mind. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Mithen, S. 1990. Thoughtful Foragers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petraglia, M. D., Shipton, C. & Paddawa, K.. 2005. Life and Mind in the Acheulean, in Gamble, C. & Porr, M. (ed.) The Hominid Individual in Context: 197–219. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plavcan, J. M. 2000. Inferring social behaviour from sexual dimorphism in the fossil record. Journal of Human Evolution 39: 327–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, M. B. & Parfitt, S. A.. 1999. Boxgrove. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Roux, V., Bril, B. & Dietrich, G.. 1995. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping. World Archaeology 27: 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, C.G. 2006. Acheulian quarries in the Upper Karoo, South Africa. Annual Meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 2002. Genes, memes and human history London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. J. & Steele, J.. 1999. Cultural learning in hominids: a behavioural ecological approach in Box, H. O. & Gibson, K. R. (ed.) Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives: 367–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snowdon, C. T. 2004. Sexual selection and communication in Kappeler, P. & van Schaik, C. (ed.) Sexual selection in primates: new and comparative perspectives: 57–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, D. 2002. Skill and cognition in tool production: an ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43: 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voland, E. (ed.) 2003. Evolutionary Aesthetics. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenban-Smith, F.F. 2004. Biface typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers andtwo giantbifaces from Cuxton. Lithics 25: 11–21.Google Scholar
White, M. J. 1998. On the significance of Acheulean bifaces variability in Southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64: 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed