Introduction

Archaeology is, in its most basic sense, a discipline founded on hypotheses. Our interpretations often present hypothetical explanations of the material record that are established through our understanding and synthesis of the data available to us. Archaeology is also unique in that it can be classified as both a science and humanity. An appreciation of human nature is essential, but there is also a reliance on scientific analysis of the raw data extracted from the material record in order to comprehend the past. However, empirical testing and theoretical insights cannot always provide access to the reasoning behind the actions of people. Indeed, our interpretive potential is often complicated further given the apparent duality of our field of study and the somewhat conflicting nature of the arts and the sciences (Jones 2002). This has resulted in multiple debates throughout the years concerning how archaeology should be practiced, as well as providing some confusion as to what archaeology actually consists of (Millson 2011a). Experimentation in archaeology can be seen to bridge the gap between these two opposing philosophies by not only providing the means to ‘get inside the minds’ of past populations, but also the ability to test the processes of data acquisition, as well as the conclusions and hypotheses that are formulated from such data. In addition, at its core, experimental archaeology enables us to interpret the material record in a realistic manner

Symmetry is its own reward: on the character and significance of Acheulean handaxe symmetry in the Middle Pleistocene

Bilateral symmetry in handaxes has significant implications for hominin cognitive and socio-behavioural evolution. Here the authors show that high levels of symmetry occur in the British Late Middle Pleistocene Acheulean, which they consider to be a deliberate, socially mediated act. Furthermore, they argue that lithic technology in general, and handaxes in particular, were part of a pleasure-reward system linked to dopamine-releasing neurons in the brain. Making handaxes made Acheulean hominins happy, and one particularly pleasing property was symmetry

Invisible Individuals, Visible Groups: On the evidence for individuals and groups at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Caddington, Bedfordshire, UK

An emphasis on socially orientated approaches to studying the Palaeolithic has become commonplace. As a result, a “bottom up” approach to interpreting the material record has developed, which emphasises the individual as the appropriate analytical unit. However, this often reduces discussion to “theoretical storytelling”, and there is currently no suitable methodology in place to enable the hypotheses brought about by such discourse to be adequately tested. This paper presents research designed to investigate whether the individual is truly a viable unit of analysis within the Lower Palaeolithic. Using an innovative form of analysis centred around the study of flake scar patterning on Acheulean handaxes, the possibilities of tracing individual knappers through Lower Palaeolithic tools from the site of Caddington, Bedfordshire, are explored. The results indicate that a suite of factors collaborate to continually redefine lithic reduction, resulting in any idiosyncrasies present being subsumed within a flexible approach to stone tool manufacture. However, the possibilities of variable group traditions are detected. The implications of this bring into question our ability to produce meaningful dialogues regarding the study of individuals and emphasises that we still do not fully understand how the group influenced Palaeolithic society

Investigating the Individual? An Experimental Approach through Lithic Refitting

Recent years have seen a dramatic shift in the theoretical outlook of Palaeolithic archaeologists. As a result, the interpretive focus of archaeological investigations has begun to shift from the actions of hominin groups to the ways in which individual hominins influenced society. While some maintain that this „bottom-up‟ approach is the analytical ideal (Gamble & Gittins 2004), others have suggested that the study of individuals is a goal beyond the resolution of Palaeolithic archaeology (e.g. Clark 1992). More importantly, it has been shown that archaeologists still lack a solid methodological framework that allows theoretical assumptions to be tested and the social aspect of material culture to be fully interpret beyond „naïve reconstructionism‟ (Hopkinson & White 2005). This paper discusses the extent to which the „bottom-up‟ approach can be sustained. Focusing on the Lower Palaeolithic and using an experimental assemblage of the most prolific data set available — stone tools — coupled with the chaîne opératoire approach to lithic reduction, it demonstrates whether individual knappers can be traced through the idiosyncratic signatures they leave in their knapping sequences. The possibility of distinguishing individuals in deep Prehistory would grant new insights into hominin identity, interaction and specialisation beyond mere theoretical musings. However, as the results of this experiment show, Palaeolithic archaeologists are currently unable to accurately approach this fine-grained level of analysis, which has obvious implications for any discussion of the individual and their social relationships throughout Prehistory

Exploring late Neanderthal locales : preliminary reanalyses of Middle Palaeolithic assemblages from the Axe Valley

Recently, White & Pettitt (2011) put forward the concept of Local Operational Areas (LOAs) for several regions in late Middle Palaeolithic Britain. They suggested that local clusters of sites and findspots represent regional areas in which Neanderthals operated, possibly in conjunction with seasonal occupations. They also noted that British Neanderthal raw-material acquisition occurred over a local scale, with flint generally acquired within 5 km of findspots and never further than ~30–40 km, consistent with Geneste’s (1985; 1989) local and regional scales of raw- material transfer, indicating a potential constraint on landscape use. Furthermore, they posit whether LOAs were part of a wider network of Neanderthal occupation and relocation throughout Britain. . .

The Enigmatic Handaxe: In Search of Idiosyncrasies in Bifacial Technology through Three-Dimensional Form

Palaeolithic archaeology has experienced a dramatic shift from processual to post-processual theory in recent years. As a result we have begun to adjust our focus from interpreting the roles of groups of hominids to investigating the way in which ‘individual’ hominins had an impact on their societies. While some argue for a ‘bottom-up’ approach to the study of the Palaeolithic (Gamble and Gittens 2004), others are of the opinion that the study of ‘individual’ hominins is a goal beyond the resolution of the Palaeolithic archaeological record (e.g. Clark 1992). Perhaps more problematic is the current lack of a methodological framework that allows us to test our theoretical assumptions and interpret the social aspect of material culture beyond mere ‘naïve reconstructionism’ (Hopkinson and White 2005). With lithic assemblages being our most celebrated source of evidence for Palaeolithic societies, this paper presents the results from a new and innovative experiment that seeks to show whether these artefacts can be aributed to the individuals who made them. Using three-dimensional reconstruction of tool forms and a reflexive method of interpreting the data, this paper attempts to test the validity of the ‘bottom-up’ approach in a step towards new analytical techniques that may ask, and answer, new questions of Palaeolithic material culture

A large handaxe from Wadi Dabsa and early hominin adaptations within the Arabian Peninsula

The role played by the Arabian Peninsula in hominin dispersals out of Africa has long been debated. The DISPERSE Project has focused on south-western Arabia as a possible centre of hominin settlement and a primary stepping-stone for such dispersals. This work has led to the recent discovery, at Wadi Dabsa, of an exceptional assemblage of over 1000 lithic artefacts, including the first known giant handaxe from the Arabian Peninsula. The site and its associated artefacts provide important new evidence for hominin dispersals out of Africa, and give further insight into the giant handaxe phenomenon present within the Acheulean stone tool industry