doi 10.4436/jass.95017 JASs Invited Reviews Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 95 (2017), pp. 67-108 Form and function in the Lower Palaeolithic: history, progress, and continued relevance Alastair J. M. Key1 & Stephen J. Lycett2 1) School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NR, United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected] 2) Department of Anthropology (Evolutionary Anthropology Laboratory), University at Buffalo, SUNY, Amherst, NY 14261, U.S.A. Summary - Percussively flaked stone artefacts constitute a major source of evidence relating to hominin behavioural strategies and are, essentially, a product or byproduct of a past individual’s decision to create a tool with respect to some broader goal. Moreover, it has long been noted that both differences and recurrent regularities exist within and between Palaeolithic stone artefact forms. Accordingly, archaeologists have frequently drawn links between form and functionality, with functional objectives and performance often being regarded consequential to a stone tool’s morphological properties. Despite these factors, extensive reviews of the related concepts of form and function with respect to the Lower Palaeolithic remain surprisingly sparse. We attempt to redress this issue. First we stress the historical place of form–function concepts, and their role in establishing basic ideas that echo to this day. We then highlight methodological and conceptual progress in determining artefactual function in more recent years. Thereafter, we evaluate four specific issues that are of direct consequence for evaluating the ongoing relevance of form–function concepts, especially with respect to their relevance for understanding human evolution more generally. Our discussion highlights specifically how recent developments have been able to build on a long historical legacy, and demonstrate that direct, indirect, experimental, and evolutionary perspectives intersect in crucial ways, with each providing specific but essential insights for ongoing questions. We conclude by emphasising that our understanding of these issues and their interaction, has been, and will be, essential to accurately interpret the Lower Palaeolithic archaeological record, tool-form related behaviours of Lower Palaeolithic hominins, and their consequences for (and relationship to) wider questions of human evolution. Keywords - Lithic Artefacts, Morphology, Flake, Biface, Handaxe, Stone-tool Function. Functional concepts within Lower (i.e. waste), their production was nonetheless the Palaeolithic archaeology result of flaking a stone object for functional pur- poses. Consequently, functional concepts have Palaeolithic stone artefacts are the product of maintained a prominent position within studies a past individual’s intention to modify a natural of lithic artefacts (Semenov, 1964; Keeley, 1980; rock such that it is capable of performing a defin- Odell 1981; Torrence, 1989a; Nelson, 1991; able objective or activity. That is, they are a prod- Kuhn, 1994; Shea, 2007; Roche et al., 2009; uct of creating a tool capable of modifying an Gowlett, 2011a; Braun, 2012; Key, 2016). Most aspect of an individual’s physical or social envi- notably, archaeologists have frequently drawn ronment in respect to some broader goal. Hence, links between form and functionality, with while many artefacts excavated from Palaeolithic functional objectives and performance often sequences may have been considered a byproduct being regarded as consequential to a stone tool’s the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com 68 Form and function in the Early Stone Age morphological properties. In turn, ‘function’ is their potential ability to influence the percep- frequently presented as an explanatory hypoth- tion and behaviour of other individuals or esis for the forms of stone artefacts recovered groups within hominin social systems. Hence, in archaeologically. theory, change or stability in the formal proper- In many respects, function may be consid- ties (material, mass, size, shape, etc.) of artefacts ered a principal influence on stone tool form through time can be explained, in part, by selec- during the Lower Palaeolithic. Certainly, their tive processes that increase or maintain a tool’s role as tools raises important questions relating to performance characteristics within a given func- the choices underlying their production and how tional context (Meltzer 1981; Schiffer & Skibo this relates to their ability to be applied to utilitar- 1987, 1997; O’Brien et al. 1994; Key & Lycett, ian tasks and the wider behavioural strategies of in press; Lycett et al. 2016). Performance charac- hominin populations (Torrence, 1989b). Given teristics may be defined as “an interaction-and- the potentially contentious nature of implying activity-specific capability of a person or artefact” ‘function’ to be a principal determinate of stone (Schiffer et al. 2001, p.731). In this way, a tool’s tool morphologies, it is important to stress that performance characteristics describe its ability to the term ‘principal’ need not imply that function undertake specific techno-, socio- and ideo-func- is necessarily the most frequent cause of variation tions, based on its formal properties (Schiffer & between artefactual forms, or even the variable Skibo 1997). Moreover, such various functional with the strongest potential influence. Indeed, categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive an important role of the present review is to and could be incorporated simultaneously into highlight limitations to the explanatory power artefactual forms (Sackett, 1977). Accordingly, of form–function relationships and the fact that the interaction between a tool’s formal attributes in many situations the application of functional and performance could, in principle, lead to the models should not only be done with caution, exertion of selective pressure on artefactual form but often leads directly to the need to consider (O’Brien et al., 1994). other explanatory hypotheses. Despite these factors, extensive reviews of The ‘function’ of a lithic artefact within Plio- the related concepts of form and function with Pleistocene contexts was potentially diverse and respect to the Lower Palaeolithic remain sparse. could accordingly be defined too narrowly. As This could be considered surprising given that noted by Schiffer & Skibo (1987), artefactual stone artefacts constitute one of the most impor- ‘function’ may be considered in either utilitar- tant data sets relating to hominin behaviour and ian (techno-function), social (socio-function) the central role that function may have played or ideological (ideo-function) terms. Functional in forming that record. Here, we attempt to discussions within an archaeological context do, redress this issue. First we stress the historical then, imply the use of an artefact for a particular place of form–function concepts, and their role purpose. Most functional studies of lithic arte- in establishing basic ideas that echo to this day. facts are concerned with the use of stone tools However, we show how little progress beyond during cutting behaviours, where the forceful listing plausible functions was made in the early application of an object (usually with a clearly phases of the discipline. We next, therefore, defined edge) to material results in fracturing highlight methodological and conceptual pro- and deformation of that material. The vari- gress in determining artefactual function in more ability of potential cutting actions undertaken recent years. Thereafter, we evaluate four specific by stone technologies is diverse and includes issues that are of direct relevance to determining slicing, cleaving, piercing, grinding, scraping whether form–function interactions were of rel- and drilling, among others (Atkins, 2009; Key, evance to Lower Palaeolithic hominin behaviour. 2016). Their possible role as percussive tools In one sense, the notion of form and function or as projectiles has also been discussed, as has with regard to the Lower Palaeolithic may seem A. J. M. Key & S. J. Lycett 69 quaint or even outdated entirely. In conclusion, large flakes and possess a sharp, straight edge at therefore, and based directly on the issues raised, one end, which is left from the original flake sur- we attempt to untangle the extent to which face (Isaac, 1977; Clark & Kleindienst, 2001). form and function may have been entwined in Many studies have focused on documenting and Lower Palaeolithic stone technologies. Moreover, analysing size and shape variation within and we assess the continued relevance of these con- between handaxe and cleaver assemblages distrib- cepts for Palaeolithic archaeology, especially with uted across Africa and Eurasia (e.g., Isacc, 1977; respect to their ongoing relevance for under- Roe, 1981; Wynn & Tierson, 1990; Saragusti et standing human evolution more generally. al., 1998; McPherron, 1999; Vaughan, 2001; McNabb et al., 2004; Sharon, 2007; Lycett & Gowlett, 2008; Lycett, 2008; Chauhan, 2010; Lower Palaeolithic Stone Technology Iovita & McPherron, 2011; Shipton & Petraglia, 2011; Wang et al., 2012; Gowlett, 2011a, 2015), The Lower Palaeolithic is characterised—at identifying both similarities and differences in its most basic level—by the production of large artefactual forms. The appearance of ‘Levallois’ (>10cm) or small flake (<10cm) tools (modified prepared-core (or Mode 3) technologies at least or unmodified) and bifacially flaked core tools,