Valentine Roux & Blandine Bril (ed.). Stone knapping: the necessary conditions far a uniquely hominin behaviour.

Ashton, Nick

VALENTINE ROUX & BLANDINE BRIL (ed.). Stone knapping: the necessary conditions far a uniquely hominin behaviour. xii+356 pages, 146 illustrations, 39 tables. 2005. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 1-902937-34-1 hardback 35 [pounds sterling].

This handsome volume is a collection of papers delivered at a workshop in Pont-a-Mousson (France) in 2001. The title might beguile the reader into thinking that this is a light read about stone tool making and its early inception by humans. However, this is a heavyweight tome, which the editors divide into three sections: the techniques and skills of stone knapping; the actual mechanisms that underpin knapping; and the social and cognitive conditions that are needed for its innovation. In other words, what conditions--mental, physical and environmental--enabled the introduction of stone-working by early humans. The chapters, however, do not divide quite so neatly.

Primatology inspires much of the book, in that it looks for distinctions between humans and other primates. Pelegrin (Chapter 2) and Roche (Chapter 3) set the ball rolling by arguing that humans knap stone in a controlled fashion, while non-human primates are limited to simple bashing and splintering of rocks. Marchant and McGrew (Chapter 23) do emphasise, however, that nut-cracking skill (and by implication stone-bashing) was an important precursor to knapping.

A number of contributions examine the biomechanics, action dynamics and handedness. Ivanova (Chapter 8) concludes that both non-human primates and humans are able to use complex coordinated strokes (such as in a tennis serve or in stone knapping), but that there are differences in the human ability to quickly adapt during the action. Smitson et al. (Chapter 9) underline the point: they argue that planning is not about adhering to a blue-print, but involves the continuous interaction between body and mind. Handedness is examined by Holder, who reviews the cost benefits (Chapter 14), and by Corbetta (Chapter 13) who emphasises its importance together with stable bimanual action (better achieved with an upright posture) when comparing human infants and non-human primates. The stone-breaking potential of non-human primates is what Foucart et al., Byrne, and Cummins-Sebree & Fragaszy focus on in Chapters 10-12. They broadly conclude that despite non-human primates having ability at asymmetric bimanual actions and sometimes a degree of handedness, humans differ in having the motor-skills to deliver powerful, accurate blows and the ability to assess the consequence of subsequent actions.

Having established the importance of handedness, how can this be linked to the past? Steele and Uomini (Chapter 15) show the way forward by demonstrating how early evidence of handedness can be found in contexts as varied as human skeletal material, the lithic record, cut marks on teeth and art. From a slightly different tack, Marzke (Chapter 16) shows the importance of the morphology of the human hand, which possesses a combination of features that facilitate stone knapping. Though the early hominin fossil record is (at the moment) too fragmentary to reveal which species were the tool makers, the study does provide a clear way of pushing the subject forward.

Several chapters are not for the light-hearted. Maier et al. (Chapter 17) examine the links between brain and upper limb dexterity in species ranging from cats to humans. Brain activation in knapping mode 1 technologies is studied by Stout (Chapter 18) who concludes that the mental demands may lie more with execution than conceptualisation. Almost in converse, Jacobs et al. (Chapter 19) study the inability of subjects with the severe motor disorder of apraxia to control the working point of tools.

Next comes skill acquisition. Stout (Chapter 22) examines the importance of social context for skill acquisition amongst the modern stone adze knappers of Langda village in Indonesia. As Stout admits, they '... do not provide a direct window on the past, but they do offer a valuable example and source of inspiration for new perspectives on prehistoric stone knapping.' The social context of learning by human infants is also emphasised by Lockman (Chapter 21), while Bushnell et al. (Chapter 20) argue that learning patterns may have parallels with those of early hominins, for example the ability to transfer imitated actions to novel situations. Winton (Chapter 7) contributes further to the learning theme in an interesting study of the influence that knapping by beginners has on the variation we see in handaxe form.

A few chapters, such as those dealing with the modern stone-bead makers of Khambat in India (Chapters 4-6 by Bril et al., Biryukova et al. and Roux & David), seem to have only tangential relevance to the volume. Although these studies are of interest, I still struggle to see their real relevance to early tool-making hominins who had different aims, different techniques and were different species to ourselves.

However, the editors should be congratulated for bringing together such a diverse range of studies, most of which do have a bearing on the highly important topic of the innovation of stone knapping. But with diversity come problems of terminology, as Byrne points out (Chapter 11). Some of this stems from French terminology, such as the difference between 'method' and 'technique', which does not translate so easily into English. There is also misunderstanding of the term conchoidal fracture, which is an intrinsic property of some rocks, not a technique of knapping as suggested in some chapters. But these are minor quibbles.

So where is this work getting us? Hopefully a little further along a very long road. Put simply, we do not possess much evidence. We have our understanding of the bodies and brains of modern humans and non-human primates together with the fragmentary fossil record and their associated stone tools. We are, though, still a long way off understanding the spark that set the whole thing off some 2.5 million years ago.

NICK ASHTON

The British Museum, London, UK