Advertisement

The Mental Template in Handaxe Manufacture: New Insights into Acheulean Lithic Technological Behavior at Boxgrove, Sussex, UK

  • Paula García-Medrano
  • Andreu Ollé
  • Nick Ashton
  • Mark B. Roberts
Article

Abstract

The morphological variability of large cutting tools (LCT) during the Middle Pleistocene has been traditionally associated with two main variables: raw material constraints and reduction intensity. Boxgrove — c.500 ka — is one of the most informative sites at which to analyze shaping strategies and handaxe morphological variability in the European Middle Pleistocene, because of the large number of finished handaxes, and the presence of complete operational chains. We focused on the entire handaxe and rough-out sample from Boxgrove-Q1/B with the aim of assessing the role of raw material characteristics — size, form, and homogeneity of nodules — in the shaping process, and to ascertain if they represent real constraints in the production of handaxes. Additionally, given the large number of handaxes and the intensity of the thinning work at Boxgrove, we also aimed to determine if reduction intensity affected the final shape to the degree that some authors have previously postulated. The methodology combines traditional technological descriptions, metrical analysis, and experimental reproduction of shaping processes together with geometric morphometry and PCA. The conclusions we draw are that the Q1/B handaxe knapping strategies were flexible and adapted to the characteristics of the blanks. These characteristics affected the reduction strategy but there is no clear relationship between initial nodule or blank morphology and final handaxe shape. Throughout the experiments, we explored the capacity to solve problems arising from reduction accidents, which led to re-configuring the knapping strategy to achieve the predetermined “mental template.” Furthermore, no substantial morphological differences related to reduction intensity were noticed with the Q1/B handaxes. Systematic re-sharpening as the cause of shape variation seems highly unlikely, perhaps related to the short use-life of the Boxgrove-Q1/B handaxes. Preferred forms constitute part of a broader pattern emerging for specific handaxe types at different times during the British Acheulean. The patterns have tentatively been interpreted as the result of changing environments and the movement of hominin populations.

Keywords

Acheulean Handaxe Shaping strategies Morphometry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are deeply grateful to the Boxgrove team at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL, and the British Museum for giving us access to the archaeological material, and all the facilities during the process. We are grateful to the knappers J.M. Vergès, M. Guardiola, and J. Guiu, plus one of the authors (A.O.). P.G.M. benefited from a pre-doctoral research grant from the Fundación Siglo para las Artes en Castilla y León, and from two pre-doctoral mobility grants to London by University of Burgos, supported by Dr. Carlos Díez. The experimental session was supported by the Catalan AGAUR project 2008-PBR-00033. This work was developed within the frame of the projects 2017-SGR-1040 (AGAUR), 2014/2015/2016PFR-URV-B2-17 (URV), and CGL2015-65387-C3-1-P (MINECO/FEDER), and inside the CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya. P.G.M. has been granted a fellowship from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement N. 748316.

References

  1. Antón, S. C. (2003). Natural history of Homo erectus. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 46, 126–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton, N. (2008). Transport, curation and resharpening of lithics in the lower middle Paleolithic. Lithics, 29, 6–17.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, N. M. (2016). The human occupation of Britain during the Hoxnian interglacial. Quaternary International, 409, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashton, N. M. (2017). Landscapes of habit and persistent places during MIS 11 in Europe. A return journey from Britain. In M. Pope, J. McNabb, & C. S. Gamble (Eds.), Crossing the Threshold. Dynamic Transformation and Persistent Places During the Middle Pleistocene (pp. 142–164). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ashton, N., & Hosfield, R. (2010). Mapping the human record in the British early Palaeolithic: evidence from the Solent River system. Journal of Quaternary Science, 25, 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashton, N., McNabb, J. (1994). Bifaces in perspective. In N. Ashton & A. David (Eds.), Stories in stone. Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, 4, 182–191.Google Scholar
  7. Ashton, N., & White, M. J. (2003). Bifaces and raw materials: flexible flaking in the British early Paleolithic. In M. Soressi & H. L. Dibble (Eds.), Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies (pp. 109–123). Pennsylvania: Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.Google Scholar
  8. Ashton, N. M., Cook, J., Lewis, S. G., & Rose, J. (Eds.). (1992). High lodge: excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962–68 and J. Cook (Vol. 1988). London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ashton, N., Lewis, S. G., Parfitt, S. A., Penkman, K. E. H., & Russell Coope, G. (2008). New evidence for complex climate change in MIS 11 from Hoxne, Suffolk, UK. Quaternary Science Review, 27(7–8), 652–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ashton, N. M., Lewis, S. G., Parfitt, S. A., Davis, R. J., & Stringer, C. B. (2016). Handaxe and non-handaxe assemblages during marine isotope stage 11 in northern Europe: recent investigations at Barnham, Suffolk, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science, 31, 837–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnes, R. S. K. (1980). Coastal Lagoons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bergman, C. A., & Roberts, M. B. (1988). Flaking technology at the Acheulean site of Boxgrove (West Sussex, England). Revue Archéologique de Picardie, 1(1), 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paléolithique Acient et Moyen. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
  14. Bridgland, D. R., & White, M. J. (2015). Chronological variations in handaxes: patterns detected from fluvial archives in NW Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, 623–638.Google Scholar
  15. Bridgland, D. R., Lewis, S. G., & Wymer, J. J. (1995). Middle Pleistocene stratigraphy and archaeology around Mildenhall and Icklingham, Suffolk: report on the geologists’ association field meeting, 27th June 1992. Proccedings of the Geologists’ Association, 106(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Candy, I., Schreve, D., & White, T. S. (2015). MIS13-12 in Britain and the North Atlantic: Understanding the palaeoclimatic context of the earliest Acheulean. Journal of Quaternary Science, 30(7), 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carbonell, E., Guibaud, M., & Mora, R. (1983). Utilización de la lógica analítica para el estudio de los tecnocomplejos de cantos tallados. Cahier Noir, 1, 3–79.Google Scholar
  18. Carbonell, E., Rodríguez Alvarez, X. P., Sala i Ramos, R., & Vaquero, M. (1992). New elements of the logical analitic system. Cahier Noir, 6.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, J. D. (1994). The Acheulian industrial complex in Africa and elsewhere. In R. S. Corrucin & R. L. Ciochon (Eds.), Integrative paths to the past Paleoanthropology advances in honor of F. Clark Howell (pp. 451–469). Pretice-Hall: New Yersey.Google Scholar
  20. Clarkson, C. (2013). Measuring core reduction using 3D flake scar density: a test case of changing core reduction at Klasies River mouth, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(12), 4348–4357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crompton, R. H., & Gowlett, J. A. J. (1993). Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 25(3), 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis, R. J. (2013). Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Solent River: Human Settlement History and Technology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading. UK.Google Scholar
  23. Emery, K. (2010). Reexamination of variability in handaxe form in the British Paleolithic. Dissertation, UCL, UK: Ph.D.Google Scholar
  24. 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, 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Field, A. S. (2005). Transformations in dividuality: personhood and palaeoliths in the Middle Pleistocene. In C. Gamble & M. Porr (Eds.), The hominid individual in context: Archaeological investigations of Lower & Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales & artefacts (pp. 29–49). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Gamble, C. (1999). The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: World Archeology.Google Scholar
  27. García-Medrano, P. (2011). Los sistemas técnicos del Pleistoceno Medio en el Oeste de Europa. Cadenas operativas y procesos de configuración en los conjuntos líticos de Galería y Gran Dolina-TD10-1 (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, España) y Boxgrove (Sussex, Inglaterra). Ph.D. Dissertation: Universidad de Burgos, Spain.Google Scholar
  28. García-Medrano, P. (2017). Replicating the handaxe shaping strategies from Boxgrove (Sussex, UK). In R. Alonso, J. Baena, & D. Canales (Eds.), Playing with the time. Experimental archaeology and the study of the past, Servicio de Publicaciones de la UAM, Madrid (pp. 19–24).Google Scholar
  29. Goren-Inbar, N. (2011). Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry: a case study from Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1567), 1038–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gowlett, J. A. J. (1986). Culture and conceptualisation: the Oldowan-Acheulian gradient. In G. N. Bailey & P. Callow (Eds.), Stone age in prehistory studies in memory of Charles Mc Burney (pp. 243–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  31. Gowlett, J. A. J. (2006). The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (Eds.), Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (pp. 1–20). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  32. Gowlett, J. A. J. (2011). Innovation and the Evolution of Human Behavior. The Vital Sense of Proportion: Transformation, Golden Section, and 1:2 Preference in Acheulean Bifaces. PaleoAnthropol, Special Issue, 174–187.Google Scholar
  33. Gowlett, J. A. J., & Crompton, R. H. (1994). Kariandusi: Acheulian morphology and the question of allometry. African Archaeological Review, 12, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gowlett, J. A. J., Hallos, J., Hounsell, S., Brant, V., & Debenham, N. C. (2005). Beeches pit—archaeology, assemblage dynamics and early fire history of a Middle Pleistocene site in East Anglia, UK. Eurasian Prehistory, 3, 3–38.Google Scholar
  35. Hammer, Ø., & Harper, D. A. T. (2006). Paleontological Data Analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics package for education and data analysis. Paleontologia Electronica, 4(1), 9.Google Scholar
  37. Holmes, J. A., Atkinson, T., Fiona Darbyshire, D. P., Horne, D. J., Joordans, J., Roberts, M. B., Sinka, K. J., & Whittaker, J. E. (2010). Middle Pleistocene climate and hydrological environments at the Boxgrove hominin site (West Sussex, UK) from ostracod records. Quaternary Science Review, 29(13–14), 1515–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iovita, R., & McPherron, S. (2011). The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. Journal of Human Evolution, 61(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Isaac, G. (1969). Studies of early culture in East Africa. World Archaeology, 1(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Isaac, G. (1986). Fundation stones: early artefacts as indicators of activities and abilities. In G. N. Bailey & P. Callow (Eds.), Stone age prehistory (pp. 221–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. (1999). Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity, 73(281), 518–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lycett, S. J., Schillinger, K., Eren, M. I., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Mesoudi, A. (2016). Factors affecting Acheulean handaxe variation: Experimental insights, microevolutionary processes, and macroevolutionary outcomes. Quaternary International, 411(Part B), 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mania, D. (1995). The earliest occupation of Europe: the Elbe-Saaleregion (Germany). In W. Roebroeks & T. van Kolfschoten (Eds.), The earliest occupation of Europe (pp. 85–102). Leiden: University of Leiden and European Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Macphail, R.I. (1999). Sediment micromorphology. In M.B. Roberts & S.A. Parfitt (Eds.), Boxgrove: A Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex (pp. 118–149). London: English Heritage Monograph Series. Archaeological Report 17.Google Scholar
  45. Macphail, R.I., Acott, T.G. and Crowther, J. (in prep) In M.B. Roberts, S.A. Parfitt & M.I. Pope (Eds.), Boxgrove: an early Middle Pleistocene site at the Q1/B waterhole, West Sussex, UK. Excavation and research 1993-2012. Spoilheap monograph. Suffolk: Lavenham Press.Google Scholar
  46. McNabb, J., Hosfield, R. T., Dearling, K., Barker, D., Strutt, K., Cole, J., Bates, M. R., & Toms, P. (2012). Recent work at the lower Palaeolithic site of Corfe Mullen, Dorset, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 78, 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McPherron, S. P. (1995). A reexamination of the british biface data. Lithics, 16, 47–63.Google Scholar
  48. McPherron, S. P. (1999). Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a line. Préhistoire Européenne, 14, 9–32.Google Scholar
  49. McPherron, S. P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27(8), 655–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mithen, S. (2005). The singing Neanderthals: the origins of music, language, mind and body. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  51. Molines, N., Monnier, J. L., Hinguant, S., & Hallegouet, B. (2005). L’Acheuléen del’ouest de la France: apports du site de Menez Dregan I (Plouhinec, Finistère, France). In M. Molines, M. H. Moncel, & J. L. Monnier (Eds.), Les Premiers Peuplements en Europe (pp. 533–544). Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  52. Moncel, M. H., Ashton, N., Lamotte, A., Tuffreau, A., Cliquet, D., & Despriée, J. (2015). North-west Europe early Acheulian. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 40, 302–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moncel, M. H., Arzarello, M., Boëda, É., Bonilauri, S., Chevrierc, B., Gaillarda, C., Forestiera, H., Yinghuad, L., Sémaha, F., & Zeitoune, V. (2018). (in press). Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part). Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia assemblages. C.R. Palevol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.11.007.
  54. Newcomer, M. H. (1971). Some quantitative experiments in handaxe manufacture. World Archaeology, 3(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nowell, A., & Lee Chang, M. (2009). The case against sexual selection as an explanation of Handaxe morphology. PaleoAnthropology, 77–88.Google Scholar
  56. Petraglia, M. D. (2006). The Indian Acheulian in global perspective. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (Eds.), Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (pp. 389–414). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  57. Pitts, M., & Roberts, M. B. (1997). Fairweather Eden: Life half a million years ago as revealed by the excavations at Boxgrove. New York: Fromm International ed.Google Scholar
  58. Pope, M., Roberts, M. B. (2005). Observations on the relationship between individuals and artefact scatters at the Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove, West Sussex. In C. Gamble & M. Porr (Eds.), The hominid individual in context: Archaeological investigations of Lower & Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales & artefacts (pp. 81–97). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Preece, R. C., Gowlett, J. A. J., Parfitt, S. A., Bridgland, D. R., & Lewis, S. G. (2006). Humans in the Hoxnian: habitat, context and fire use at beeches pit, west stow, Suffolk, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science, 21(5), 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roberts, M., & Parfitt, S. (1999). Boxgrove. A Middle Pleistocene hominid site at Eartham quarry, Boxgrove, west Sussex. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  61. Roberts, M. B., & Pope, M. I. (2009). The archaeological and sedimentary records from Boxgrove and Slindon. In R. M. Briant, M. R. Bates, R. T. Hosfield, & F. F. Wenban-Smith (Eds.), The quaternary of the Solent Basin and West Sussex raised beaches (pp. 96–122). London: Quaternary Research Association Field Guide.Google Scholar
  62. Roberts, M., & Pope, M. (2018). The Boxgrove wider area project. Mapping the early Middle Pleistocene deposits of the Slindon Formation across the Coastal Plain of West Sussex and eastern Hampshire. Spoilheap monograph 15. Suffolk: Lavenham Press.Google Scholar
  63. Roche, H. (2005). From simple flaking to shaping: Stone knapping evolution among early hominins. In V. Roux & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (pp. 35–48). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
  64. Rodríguez, X. P. (2004). Technical systems of lithic production in the lower and middle Pleistocene of the Iberian peninsula (p. 1323). Technological variability between north-eastern sites and the Sierra de Atapuerca sites. Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  65. Roe, D. (1968). British lower and middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 34, 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roebroeks, W., & Villa, P. (2011). On the earliest evidence for habitual use of fire in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(13), 5209–5214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schoch, W. H., Bigga, G., Böhner, U., Richterd, P., & Terberger, T. (2015). New insights on the wooden weapons from the Paleolithic site of Schöningen. Journal of Human Evolution, 89, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sharon, G. (2007). Acheulian large flake industries: Technology, chronology, and significance (p. 1701). Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  69. Sharon, G. (2008). The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(5), 1329–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., Pal, J. N., Jones, S. C., Roberts, R. G., Harris, C., Gupta, M. C., Ditchfield, P. W., & Petraglia, M. D. (2013). Generativity, hierarchical action and recursion in the technology of the Acheulean to middle Palaeolithic transition: A perspective from Patpara, the Son Valley, India. Journal of Human Evolution, 65(2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shipton, C., & Clarkson, C. (2015a). Flake scar density and handaxe reduction intensity. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shipton, C., & Clarkson, C. (2015b). Handaxe reduction and its influence on shape: An experimental test and archaeological case study. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 3, 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spikins, P. (2012). Goodwill hunting? Debates over the ‘meaning’ of lower Palaeolithic handaxe form revisited. World Archaeology, 44(3), 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production. An ethnographic case study from Iran Jaya. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stout, D. (2011). Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1567), 1050–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stout, D. (2015). Cognitive demands of lower Paleolithic toolmaking. PLoS One, 10(4), e0121804.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stout, D., Apel, J., Commander, J., & Roberts, M. (2014). Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 576–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature, 385(6619), 807–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Toth, N. (1991). The importance of experimental replicative and functional studies in Paleolithic archaeology. In J. D. Clark (Ed.), Cultural beginnings: approaches to understanding early hominid life-ways in the African savanna (pp. 109–124). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.Google Scholar
  80. Voormolen B. (2008). Ancient Hunters, Modern Butchers. Schöningen 13II-4, a Kill-butchery Site Dating from the Northwest European Lower Palaeolithic. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Leiden, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  81. Warren, S. H. (1911). Palaeolithic wooden spear. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 67, 119.Google Scholar
  82. Wenban-Smith, F. F. (1989). The use of canonical variates for determination of biface manufacturing technology at Boxgrove Lower Paleolithic site and the behavioural implications of this technology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wenban-Smith, F. F. (2004). Handaxe typology and lower Paleolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Lithics, 25, 11–21.Google Scholar
  84. Wenban-Smith, F. F., & Ashton, N. (1998). Raw material and lithic technology. In N. Ashton, S. G. Lewis, & S. Parfitt (Eds.), Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic site at east farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989–94 (pp. 237–244). London: British Museum Occasional Paper.Google Scholar
  85. Wenban-Smith, F. F., Gamble, C., & Apsimon, A. (2000). The Lower Palaeolithic site at red barns, Portchester, Hampshire: bifacial technology, raw material quality and organisation of archaic behaviour. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66, 209–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Westaway, R., Bridgland, D., & White, M. (2006). The quaternary uplift history of central southern England from the terraces of the Solent river system and nearby raised beaches. Quaternary Science Review, 25(17-18), 2212–2250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. White, M. J. (1995). Raw materials and biface variability in southern Britain: a preliminary examination. Lithics, 15, 1–20.Google Scholar
  88. White, M. J. (1998a). Twisted ovate bifaces in the British lower Palaeolithic: some observations and implications. In N. Ashton, F. Healy, & P. Pettitt (Eds.), Stone age archaeology: essays in honour of John Wymer (pp. 98–104). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  89. White, M. J. (1998b). On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 64, 15–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. White, M. J. (2006). Axeing claevers: reflections on broad-tipped large cutting tools in the British earlier Paleolithic. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (Eds.), Axe age Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (pp. 365–386). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  91. White, M. J. (2015). Dancing to the rhythms of the biotidal zone: settlement history and culture history in middle Pleistocene Britain. In F. Wenban-Smith, F. Coward, & R. Hosfield (Eds.), Settlement, society and cognition in human evolution: landscapes in mind (pp. 154–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. White, T. S., Preece, R. C., & Whittaker, J. E. (2013). Molluscan and ostracod successions from Dierden’s pit, Swanscombe: insights into the fluvial history, sea-level record and human occupation of the Hoxnian Thames. Quaternary Science Review, 70, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wynn, T. (1989). The evolution of spatial competence. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  94. Wynn, T. (1995). Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeology, 27(1), 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25(3), 389–402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula García-Medrano
    • 1
  • Andreu Ollé
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nick Ashton
    • 1
  • Mark B. Roberts
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Britain, Europe & PrehistoryBritish MuseumLondonUK
  2. 2.Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES)TarragonaSpain
  3. 3.Àrea de Prehistòria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV)TarragonaSpain
  4. 4.Institute of ArchaeologyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations