Skip to main content
Log in

Toward a “Quantitative Genetic” Approach to Lithic Variation

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lithic artifacts are increasingly being used to address questions in evolutionary, i.e., historical, terms. The explicit assumption in such analyses is that lithic attributes reflect patterns of inheritance via social learning. However, both raw material and reduction factors are known to be potential sources of lithic variation. The cultural–evolutionary analysis of lithic variability must, therefore, reconcile heritable and nonheritable sources of variation under a single coherent framework. Moreover, there is a frequent assumption that conveniently measureable features, such as the relative shape of a biface at a specific point of its length, can be used as indicators of heritable variation. The use of such traits, however, is potentially questionable, especially in the light of controlled experiments that indicate that traits such as platform depths and angles influence the form of individual flakes. As such, it may be reasonable to consider whether such features represent more appropriate analytical units. Here, we contend that the solution to these problems lies in application of a “quantitative genetics” approach, which was designed to solve directly analogous problems in biology. This approach explicitly models multiple sources of variation simultaneously. Moreover, it provides a logical rationale for how evolutionary forces (e.g., drift and selection) can operate when only part of this variation is potentially heritable. We outline specifically how quantitative genetic theory can be rewritten for use with lithic artifacts. Thereafter, we provide example analyses of data, which support our case. We conclude by summarizing the merits of this framework and outline future extensions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann, R. R. (2005). Ontogenetic integration of the hominoid face. Journal of Human Evolution, 48, 109–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, W., & Braun, D. R. (2010). Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: a geometric morphometric approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 201–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, N., & McNabb, J. (1994). Bifaces in perspective. In N. Ashton & A. David (Eds.), Stories in stone: Lithic Studies Society occasional paper no.4 (pp. 182–191). London: Lithic Studies Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, H. G. (1955). The coast Salish of British Columbia. Eugene: University Oregon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, R. A., Hahn, M. W., & Shennan, S. (2004). Random drift and culture change. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1443–1450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betti, L., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Lycett, S. J. (2012). Human pelvis and long bones reveal differential preservation of ancient population history and migration out of Africa. Human Biology, 84, 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettinger, R. L., & Eerkens, J. (1999). Point typologies, cultural transmission, and the spread of bow-and-arrow technology in the prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity, 64, 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1963). “Red ocher” caches from the Michigan area: a possible case of cultural drift. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 19, 89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1973). Interassemblage variability—the Mousterian and the functional argument. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The exploration of culture change (pp. 227–254). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R., & Binford, S. R. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist, 68, 38–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F. (1977). Time and space limits of the Mousterian. In R. V. S. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution and complexity (pp. 37–39). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordes, F., & de Sonneville‐Bordes, D. (1970). The significance of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology, 2, 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P. J. (2003). Evolution: the history of an idea. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P. J. (2010). The mathematics of chaînes opératoires. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Palaeolithic technologies (pp. 183–206). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P. J., & Perreault, C. (2010). Detecting the effects of selective and stochastic forces in archaeological assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 3211–3225.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. S., Marean, C. W., Herries, A. I., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Braun, D., et al. (2009). Fire as an engineering tool of early modern humans. Science, 325, 859–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., & Collard, M. (2007). Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistic analyses of Early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 26, 366–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., & Collard, M. (2010a). A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of blade shape differences among Paleoindian projectile point types from western North America. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 350–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., & Collard, M. (2010b). An assessment of the impact of resharpening on Paleoindian projectile point blade shape using geometric morphometric techniques. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Palaeolithic technologies (pp. 255–273). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B., & Hamilton, M. J. (2009). A formal test of the origin of variation in North American early Paleoindian projectile points. American Antiquity, 74, 279–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, R. W., & Russon, A. E. (1998). Learning by imitation: a hierarchical approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 667–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, E. (1979). The basics of biface knapping in the eastern fluted point tradition: a manual for flintknapping and lithic analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America, 7, 1–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. L. (1968). Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, C. (2010). Regional diversity within the core technology of the Howiesons Poort techno-complex. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies (pp. 43–59). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, J. K. (1977). The four dimensions of artefactual variation. In R. V. S. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution and complexity (pp. 60–66). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, J. K., & Hartl, D. L. (2004). A primer of ecological genetics. Sunderland: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A. G. (2010). A geometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies (pp. 23–41). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterell, B., & Kamminga, J. (1987). The formation of flakes. American Antiquity, 52, 675–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterell, B., Kamminga, J., & Dickson, F. P. (1985). The essential mechanics of conchoidal flaking. International Journal of Fracture, 29, 205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, J. F. (1986). Basic concepts in population, quantitative, and evolutionary genetics. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, J. F., & Kimura, M. (1970). An introduction to population genetics theory. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danchin, E., Charmantier, A., Champagne, F. A., Mesoudi, A., Pujol, B., & Blanchet, S. (2011). Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 475–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Z. J., & Shea, J. J. (1998). Quantifying lithic curation: an experimental test of Dibble and Pelcin’s original flake-tool mass predictor. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 603–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. L. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Palaeolithic scrapers: function, style, or sequence of reduction. Journal of Field Archaeology, 11, 431–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. L. (1987). Reduction sequences in the manufacture of Mousterian implements of France. In O. Soffer (Ed.), The Pleistocene old world: regional perspectives (pp. 33–45). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. L., & Pelcin, A. (1995). The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass. Journal of Archaeological Science, 22, 429–439.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. L., & Whittaker, J. C. (1981). New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion flaking and flake variation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 8, 283–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, E. R. (2004). Patterns of diversity in cranial shape among plant-visiting bats. Acta Chiropterologica, 6, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: a fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43, 192–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham, W. H. (1991). Coevolution: genes, culture and human diversity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eerkens, J. W., & Lipo, C. P. (2005). Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in material culture and the archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24, 316–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eerkens, J. W., & 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, 239–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, R. F., Lycett, S. J., & Johns, S. E. (Eds.). (2013). Understanding cultural transmission in anthropology: a critical synthesis. New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eren, M. I., Lycett, S. J., Roos, C., & Sampson, C. G. (2011). Toolstone constraints on knapping skill: Levallois reduction with two different raw materials. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 2731–2739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faisal, A., Stout, D., Apel, J., & Bradley, B. (2010). The manipulative complexity of Lower Paleolithic stone toolmaking. PLoS ONE, 5(e13718), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to quantitative genetics. New York: Ronald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer, D. S., & Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falsetti, A. B., Jungers, W. L., & Cole, T. M., III. (1993). Morphometrics of the Callitrichid forelimb: a case study in size and shape. International Journal of Primatology, 14, 551–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flenniken, J. J., & Raymond, A. W. (1986). Morphological projectile point typology: replication experimentation and technological analysis. American Antiquity, 51, 603–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frison, G. C. (1968). A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity, 33, 149–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, J. H. (1998). Population genetics: a concise guide. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. E. (1944). The physical properties of stone tool materials. American Antiquity, 9, 415–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlett, J. A. J. (1996). Mental abilities of early Homo: elements of constraint and choice in rule systems. In P. Mellars & K. Gibson (Eds.), Modelling the early human mind (pp. 191–215). Cambridge: McDonald Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlett, J. A. J. (2010). The future of lithic analysis in Palaeolithic Archaeology: a view from the Old World. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Palaeolithic technologies (pp. 295–309). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliburton, R. (2004). Introduction to population genetics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. J., & Buchanan, B. (2009). The accumulation of stochastic copying errors causes drift in culturally transmitted technologies: quantifying Clovis evolutionary dynamics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 28, 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyes, C. M. (1994). Social learning in animals: categories and mechanisms. Biological Reviews, 69, 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock, P., & Attenbrow, V. (2004). Morphological and reduction continuums in eastern Australia: measurement and implications at Capertee 3. Tempus, 7, 167–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppa, R. D., & Vaupel, J. W. (Eds.). (2002). Paleodemography: age distributions from skeletal samples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberty, C. J. (1994). Applied discriminant analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: the modern synthesis. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iovita, R. P. (2010). Comparing stone tool resharpening trajectories with the aid of elliptical Fourier analysis. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Palaeolithic technologies (pp. 235–253). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, G. L. (1986). Foundation 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 

  • Jennings, T. A., & Waters, M. R. (2014). Pre-Clovis lithic technology at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas: comparisons to Clovis though site-level behavior, technological trait-list, and cladistic analyses. American Antiquity, in press.

  • Jones, P. R. (1979). Effects of raw material on biface manufacture. Science, 204, 835–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungers, W. L., Falsetti, A. B., & Wall, C. E. (1995). Shape, relative size, and size adjustments in morphometrics. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 38, 137–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelterborn, P. (2003). Measurable flintknapping. In K. G. Hirth (Ed.), Mesoamerican lithic technology: experimentation and interpretation (pp. 120–131). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempe, M., Lycett, S., & Mesoudi, A. (2012). An experimental test of the accumulated copying error model of cultural mutation for Acheulean handaxe size. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e48333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, A. J. M., & Lycett, S. J. (2011). Technology based evolution? A biometric test of the effects of handsize versus tool form on efficiency in an experimental cutting task. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 1663–1670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimov, P. B., Lekveishvili, M., Dowling, A. P. G., & Oconnor, B. M. (2004). Multivariate analysis of morphological variation in two cryptic species of Sancassania (Acari: Acaridae) from Costa Rica. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 97, 322–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, T. A., Van Buskirk, S., & Ruscavage-Barz, S. (2004). Vessels and villages: evidence for conformist transmission in early village aggregations on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 23, 100–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. L. (1991). “Unpacking” reduction: lithic raw material economy in the Mousterian of west central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 10, 76–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. L. (2004). Evolutionary perspectives on technology and technological change. World Archaeology, 36, 561–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, S. L., & Stiner, M. C. (2011). Lewis R. Binford, 1931–2011. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20, 121–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipo, C. P., & Madsen, M. E. (2001). Neutrality, “style”, and drift: building methods for studying cultural transmission in the archaeological record. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 91–118). Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipo, C. P., Madsen, M. E., Dunnell, R. C., & Hunt, T. (1997). Population structure, cultural transmission, and frequency seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 16, 301–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lush, J. L. (1943). Animal breeding plans (2nd ed.). Ames: Iowa State College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2007). 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, 541–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2008). Acheulean variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fit neutral expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 2640–2648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2009). Are Victoria West cores ‘proto-Levallois’? A phylogenetic assessment. Journal of Human Evolution, 56, 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2010). Cultural transmission, genetic models and Palaeolithic variability: integrative analytical approaches. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Palaeolithic technologies (pp. 207–234). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2011). “Most beautiful and most wonderful”: those endless stone tool forms. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 143–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J. (2013). Cultural transmission theory and fossil hominin behaviour: a discussion of epistemological and methodological strengths. In R. F. Ellen, S. J. Lycett, & S. E. Johns (Eds.), Understanding cultural transmission in anthropology: a critical synthesis (pp. 102–130). New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J., & Gowlett, J. A. J. (2008). On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’. World Archaeology, 40, 295–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, S. J., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2008). Acheulean variability and hominin dispersals: a model-bound approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 553–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, R. L., VanPool, T. L., & O’Brien, M. J. (2008). Variation in North American dart points and arrow points when one or both are present. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 2805–2812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., & Walsh, B. (1998). Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, B., & Goren-Inbar, N. (2004). Acheulian giant core technology and beyond: an archaeological and experimental case study. Eurasian Prehistory, 2, 3–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, G., Gamble, C., & Roe, D. (2003). The Acheulian biface project: a digital archive for teaching and research. Antiquity, 77, (Online).

  • Marwick, B. (2012). A cladistic evaluation of ancient Thai bronze Buddha images: six tests for a phylogenetic signal in the Griswold collection. In D. Bonatz, A. Reinecke, & M. A. Tjoa-Bonatz (Eds.), Connecting empires (pp. 159–176). Singapore: National University of Singapore Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzke, M. W. (1996). Evolution of the hand and bipedality. In A. Lock & C. R. Peters (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic evolution (pp. 126–154). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, O. (1987). The theory of plant breeding. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherron, S. P. (1999). Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a line. Préhistoire Européenne, 14, 9–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. (1970). Some comments on the notion of ‘functional variability’ in stone-tool assemblages. World Archaeology, 2(1), 74–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellars, P. (1996). The Neanderthal legacy: an archaeological perspective from western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, D. J. (1981). A study of style and function in a class of tools. Journal of Field Archaeology, 8, 313–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzer, D. J. (2011). Lewis Roberts Binford, 1931–2011: a biographical memoir. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A. (2008). Foresight in cultural evolution. Biology and Philosophy, 23, 243–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: how Darwinian theory can explain culture and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., & O’Brien, M. J. (2008a). The cultural transmission of Great Basin projectile point technology I: an experimental simulation. American Antiquity, 73, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., & O’Brien, M. J. (2008b). The learning and transmission of hierarchical cultural recipes. Biological Theory, 3, 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2004). Is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the perspective of The Origin of Species. Evolution, 58, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, L. E., & Gregg, T. G. (1969). Population genetics and evolution. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, S. B. (2012). Lithic raw material availability and Palaeo-Eskimo novice flintknapping. In W. Wendrich (Ed.), Archaeology and apprenticeship: body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice (pp. 119–144). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J. (Ed.). (2008). Cultural transmission and archaeology: issues and case studies. Washington, D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M., & Holland, T. D. (1990). Variation, selection, and the archaeological record. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological method and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 31–79). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., & Lyman, R. L. (2000). Applying evolutionary archaeology: a systematic approach. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., & Lyman, R. L. (2003a). Style, function, transmission; an introduction. In M. J. O’Brien & R. L. Lyman (Eds.), Style, function, transmission (pp. 1–32). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., & Lyman, R. L. (2003b). Cladistics and archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., & Shennan, S. J. (Eds.). (2010). Innovation in cultural systems: contributions from evolutionary anthropology. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., & Lyman, R. L. (2001). Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 1115–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., & Schiffer, M. B. (2005). Archaeology as a process: processualism and its progeny. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Mesoudi, A., & Van Pool, T. L. (2010). Cultural traits as units of analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 3797–3806.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, F. R., & Carrano, M. T. (2005). Correlated trends in the evolution of the plesiosaur locomotor system. Paleobiology, 31, 656–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otte, M. (2003). The pitfalls of using bifaces as cultural markers. In M. Soressi & H. L. Dibble (Eds.), Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies (pp. 183–192). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddayya, K., Jhaldiyal, R., & Petraglia, M. D. (2006). The Acheulian quarry at Isampur, Lower Deccan, India. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (pp. 45–74). London: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, B. (2005). Peoples of the flute: a study in anthropolithic forensics. Denver: Stone Dagger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, B. (2012). Explaining temporal change in artifacts by the use of process controls. Lithic Technology, 37, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelcin, A. W. (1997a). The effect of core surface morphology on flake attributes: evidence from a controlled experiment. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24, 749–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelcin, A. W. (1997b). The formation of flakes: the role of platform thickness and exterior platform angle in the production of flake initiations and terminations. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24, 1107–1113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelcin, A. W. (1998). The threshold effect of platform width: a reply to Davis and Shea. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 615–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétrequin, P., & Pétrequin, A. M. (1993). From polished stone tool to sacred axe: the axes of the Danis of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. In A. Berthelet & J. Chavaillon (Eds.), The use of tools by human and non-human primates (pp. 359–377). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, S. T. (1918). Yahi Archery. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 13, 103–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, W. B. (1971). The origins of theoretical population genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prugnolle, F., Mancia, A., & Balloux, F. (2005). Geography predicts neutral genetic diversity of human populations. Current Biology, 15, 159–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, S., Deshpande, O., Roseman, C. C., Rosenberg, N. A., Feldman, M. W., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2005). Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 15942–15947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff, D. A. (1997). Evolutionary quantitative genetics. New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roff, D. A. (2007). A centennial celebration for quantitative genetics. Evolution, 61, 1017–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, D. S., Feldman, M. W., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2009). Inferring population histories using cultural data. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 276, 3835–3843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolian, C., Lieberman, D. E., & Zermeno, J. P. (2011). Hand biomechanics during simulated stone tool use. Journal of Human Evolution, 61, 26–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, C. C., & Weaver, T. D. (2007). Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human cranium. BioEssays, 29, 1185–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, P. J., Wolfe, S. L., Hertz, P. E., Starr, C., & McMillan, B. (2008). Biology: the dynamic science. Belmont: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, J. R. (1988). The Mousterian and its aftermath: a view from the Upper Paleolithic. In H. L. Dibble & A. Montet-White (Eds.), The Upper Pleistocene prehistory of western Eurasia (pp. 413–426). Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillinger, K., Mesoudi, A., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). Copying error and the cultural evolution of “additive” versus “reductive” material traditions: an experimental assessment. American Antiquity, in press.

  • Sharon, G. (2008). The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1329–1344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharon, G. (2009). Acheulian giant-core technology. Current Anthropology, 50(3), 335–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, C. N., & Stock, J. T. (2009). Intensity, repetitiveness, and directionality of habitual adolescent mobility patterns influence the tibial diaphysis morphology of athletes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 140, 149–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J. J. (2011). Stone tool analysis and human origins research: some advice from Uncle Screwtape. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20, 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (1989). Archaeology as archaeology or as anthropology? Clarke’s analytical archaeology and the Binfords’ new perspectives in archaeology 21 years on. Antiquity, 63, 831–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2000). Population, culture history, and the dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology, 41, 811–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (Ed.). (2009). Pattern and process in cultural evolution. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. (2011). Descent with modification and the archaeological record. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1070–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shennan, S. J., & Wilkinson, J. R. (2001). Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: a case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity, 66(4), 577–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (2010). Stone-tool demography: reduction distributions in North American Paleoindian tools. In S. J. Lycett & P. R. Chauhan (Eds.), New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies (pp. 275–293). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simão, J. (2002). Tools evolve: the artificial selection and evolution of Paleolithic stone tools. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, A. M. (2012). Clovis technology and settlement in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to evaluate dispersal models. American Antiquity, 77, 689–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (1995). Biometry (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speth, J. D. (1972). Mechanical basis of percussion flaking. American Antiquity, 37, 34–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout, D. (2002). Skill and cognition in stone tool production. Current Anthropology, 43, 693–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tehrani, J. J., & Collard, M. (2002). Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 21, 443–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tostevin, G. B. (2012). Seeing lithics. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Pool, T. L. (2001). Style, function, and variation: identifying the evolutionary importance of traits in the archaeological record. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 119–140). Westport: Bergin & Garvery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, C. D. (2001). A million years of style and function: regional and temporal variation in Acheulean handaxes. In T. D. Hurt & G. F. M. Rakita (Eds.), Style and function: conceptual issues in evolutionary archaeology (pp. 141–163). Westport: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2011). Global human mandibular variation reflects differences in agricultural and hunter–gatherer subsistence strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 19546–19551.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Ling, E. N., Cotter, D., & Wilkins, N. P. (2005). Determination of body shape variation in hatchery-reared and wild Atlantic Salmon. Journal of Fish Biology, 66, 1471–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldorf, D. C. (1993). The art of flintknapping (4th ed.). Branson: Mound Builder Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallaert, H. (2012). Apprenticeship and the confirmation of social boundaries. In W. Wendrich (Ed.), Archaeology and apprenticeship: body knowledge, identity, and communities of practice (pp. 20–42). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. A. (2010). Feminine knowledge and skill reconsidered: women and flaked stone tools. American Anthropologist, 112, 228–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C. A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learning & Behavior, 32, 36–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiten, A., Hinde, R. A., Stringer, C., & Laland, K. N. (Eds.). (2012). Culture evolves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: making and understanding stone tools. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winton, V. (2005). An investigation of knapping-skill development in the manufacture of Palaeolithic handaxes. In V. Roux & B. Bril (Eds.), Stone knapping: the necessary conditions for a uniquely hominin behaviour (pp. 109–116). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 25, 389–402.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Alex Mesoudi, Mike O’Brien, and two anonymous reviewers for important and helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen J. Lycett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N. Toward a “Quantitative Genetic” Approach to Lithic Variation. J Archaeol Method Theory 22, 646–675 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9200-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-013-9200-9

Keywords

Navigation