'Whatever turns you on': a response to Anna Machin, 'why handaxes just aren't that sexy'.

Mithen, Steven

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.

Kohn & Mithen had provided their own criterion for evaluating the efficacy of their theory: its ability to relate together previously disparate features of the archaeological record, this being a criterion that I have long adopted as a means for evaluating theories within archaeology (Mithen 1990). This is widely applied in science: ultimately it is the ability of Darwin's theory of natural selection to show how so many previously disparate features of the natural world are manifestations of the same process that persuades us of its power. The SHT connects together (1) the presence of high degrees of symmetry in some handaxes, (2) their patterns of discard, especially with regard to that of near pristine handaxes and their remarkable abundance at some sites, (3) their persistence in the archaeological record and (4) the transition to the flake-based levallois methods, (5) the occasional handaxe oddities, such as the very large or very small handaxes. The SHT shows how all of these are related and derive from the influence of sexual selection on the production and use of handaxes. By removing this influence, the archaeological record falls apart again into disparate and unconnected observations.

Machin fails to provide any alternative theory that could connect such previously disparate features of the archaeological record. Indeed, she doesn't even provide any alternative idea to explain any one of these features of the archaeological record, such as the high degree of symmetry in some handaxes or the fact that so many appear to have been discarded while remaining functionally viable.

I fully agree with Machin that it would be desirable to identify the sex and age of those who made handaxes and then test whether there is a male bias and whether it is those individuals who are at the peak of their sexual activity that are predominately making the symmetrical handaxes. We hardly need reminding by her that this is not possible. Nevertheless, this does not make the SHT any less viable; it simply means that two of its hypotheses cannot be tested (Machin appears to be a little bit muddled about the difference between evaluating theories and testing hypotheses that derive from those theories). There are other aspects of hominin behaviour that remain just as un-testable at present, bur which Machin appears to take for granted. She confidently asserts, for instance, that pair-bonding and male provisioning existed among Homo heidelbergensis. This is not an established fact. It is a claim made on the basis of modelling energy budgets that involves high degrees of uncertainty. I remain un-persuaded, partly because I find it inconceivable that the emergence of such new sexual and social behaviour would have left no traces in the archaeological record. My view is that such changes only occurred after 300 000 years ago and are detected by changes in both human anatomy and the archaeological record: the transition from the Acheulian to Middle Stone Age/Mousterian technologies.

Machin places considerable importance on the notion that the production of handaxes is a cooperative, group activity rather than that of an individual. While I can appreciate how the extraction of raw material might have been a group activity, I remain unclear how the making of a handaxe can be anything other than the work of an individual, is Machin suggesting that a nodule was passed around a group, with each member removing a flake in turn? Even if we acknowledge the role of cooperative activity in the acquisition of raw material, this will simply emphasise the abilities of some individuals over those of others. Watching the remarkable levels of cooperation that the members of Manchester United achieve when playing as a team, does not prevent the individual technical skill of Ronaldo, the brute strength of Rooney or the leadership of Giggs to be recognised; indeed by performing within a group these become far more evident than would have been possible if one had simply watched such footballers performing alone.

Contrary to Machin, my experience of working with flint knappers and seeking to make handaxes myself, suggest to me that strength is vital to handaxe production, especially in the early stages. Indeed it is the combination of strength and controlled precision which is so clearly indicated by a rindy made handaxe. If strength is required for working flint, my guess is that it is even more so the case for working materials such as basalt and quartzite. I also disagree with Machin regarding the possibility of evaluating the extent of social awareness by hominins. There has been a vast amount of recent literature drawing on comparative studies, fossil and archaeological evidence regarding the social intelligence of hominins (e.g. Dunbar 1996; 2004), of which social awareness is a key element. Machin appears unduly pessimistic and seemingly unaware of such literature (although I happen to be aware that she knows it very well indeed) by stating that 'unfortunately it is not possible to subject this attribute to further analysis as such behaviour is not preserved in the record'.

Machin makes several incorrect assertions about the sexy handaxe theory as proposed by Kohn & Mithen (1999). Contrary to her statement, at no time did we claim that 'handaxes ... were reserved for use in mate competition'. Instead, we explicity acknowledge that handaxes most likely had multiple roles, being efficient butchery implements as well as functioning in the social domain (Kohn & Mithen 1999: 524). What is perhaps most surprising about her article in light of its title is that she provides further evidence and arguments in support of the SHT. She notes that the regularised form of handaxes facilitates their comparison and hence the assessment of sexually selected traits, and that 'symmetry is not required for a handaxe to be an effective butchery tool'. Machin also notes how Hallos' (2005) work supports the idea that handaxes were good indicators of planning abilities. I suspect that Anna Machin needs to come out of the closet and admit that she thinks that handaxes would have been rather sexy for our long lost ancestors.

My final point is simply a question I would like to ask Machin, along with others who doubt the sexy handaxe theory. Why does it feel so enthralling to hold a rindy made symmetrical handaxe in ones hand? Why does a symmetrical handaxe look and feel so attractive? To simply argue that this arises from an 'aesthetic sense' is inadequate, for where does that sense itself arise from (see Voland 2003)? My guess is that the thrill of holding a finely made symmetrical handaxe is an echo of the Stone Age past, of a time when these objects played a key role in sexual display and to which our modern minds remain attuned.

References

ASHTON, N., S.G. LEWIS & S. PARFITT. 1998. Excavations at the Lower Palaeolithic Site at East Farm, Barnham, Suffolk 1989-94. London: British Museum.

CASPARI, R. & S.H. LEE. 2004. Older age becomes common late in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 10895-900.

DARWIN, C. 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.

DUNBAR, R. 1996. Grooming, Gossip and Language. London: Faber & Faber.

--2004. The Human Story. London: Faber & Faber.

DURAND, A.I., S.L. IPINA & J.M.B. DE CASTRO. 2000. A probabilistic approach to the assessment of some life history pattern parameters in a Middle Pleistocene human population. Mathematical Biosciences 165: 147-62.

FISHER, R.A. 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Review 7:184-92.

GAMBLE, C. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GOWLETT, J.A.J. 2006. The elements of design form in Acheulian bifaces: modes, modalities, rules and language, in N. Goran-Inbar & G. Sharon (ed.) Axe Age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard. London: Equinox.

HALLOS, J. 2005. '15 minutes of fame': Exploring the temporal dimension of Middle Pleistocene lithic technology. Journal of Human Evolution 49: 155-79.

JONES, P.R. 1994. Results of experimental work in relation to the stone industries of Olduvai Gorge, in M.D. Leakey & D.A. Roe (ed.) Olduvai Gorge Volume 5: Excavations in beds III, IV and the Masek Beds 1968-1971: 254-98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KEELEY, L.H 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone ToM Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

KEY, C.A. 1998. Cooperation, paternal care and the evolution of hominin social groups. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London.

KOHN, M. & S. MITHEN. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518-26.

MACHIN, A.J. 2006. The Acheulean Biface: Symmetry, Function and Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominin Behaviour. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Reading.

--In press. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability: a multifactorial model. Journal of Social Archaeology.

MACHIN, A.J., R.T. HOSFIELD & S.J. MITHEN. 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 883-93.

MARLOWE, F.W. 2005. Hunter gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 14: 57-67.

MARSHALL, G.D., C.S. GAMBLE, D.A. ROE & D. DUPPLAW. 2002. Acheulian biface database. http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/specColl/bifaces/ bf_query.cfm.

McPHERRON, S.P. 2000. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 655-63.

MILLER, G.F. 1999. Sexual selection for cultural displays, in R. Dunbar, C. Knight & C. Power (ed.) The Evolution of Culture: 71-91. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

--2000. The Mating Mind. London: Vintage.

MITHEN, S. 1990. Thoughtful Foragers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PETRAGLIA, M.D., C. SHIPTON & K. PADDAYYA. 2005. Life and Mind in the Acheulean, in C. Gamble & M. Porr (ed.) The Hominid Individual in Context: 197-219. Abingdon: Routledge.

PLAVCAN, J.M. 2000. Inferring social behaviour from sexual dimorphism in the fossil record. Journal of Human Evolution 39: 327-44.

ROBERTS, M.B. & S.A. PARFITT. 1999. Boxgrove. London: English Heritage.

ROUX, V., B. BRIL & G. DIETRICH. 1995. Skills and learning difficulties involved in stone knapping. World Archaeology 27: 63-87.

SAMPSON, C.G. 2006. Acheulian quarries in the Upper Karoo, South Africa. Annual Meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society, Puerto Rico.

SHENNAN, S. 2002. Genes, memes and human history London: Thames & Hudson.

SHENNAN, S. J. & J. STEELE. 1999. Cultural learning in hominids: a behavioural ecological approach in H.O. Box & K.R. Gibson (ed.) Mammalian Social Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives: 367-88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

SNOWDON, C.T. 2004. Sexual selection and communication in P. Kappeler & C. van Schaik (ed.) Sexual selection in primates: new and comparative perspectives: 57-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

STOUT, D. 2002. Skill and cognition in tool production: an ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43: 693-722.

VOLAND, E. (ed.) 2003. Evolutionary Aesthetics. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

WENBAN-SMITH, F.F. 2004. Biface typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural development: ficrons, cleavers and two giant bifaces from Cuxton. Lithics 25: 11-21.

WHITE, M.J. 1998. On the significance of Acheulean bifaces variability in Southern Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64:15-44.

ZAHAW, A. 1975. Mate selection--a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-14.

Steven Mithen, School of Human & Environmental Sciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK (Email: s.j.mithen@rdg.ac.uk)