Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:09:16.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex, symmetry and silliness in the bifacial world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Brian Hayden  and
Suzanne Villeneuve
Brian Hayden
Affiliation:
*Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6 (Email: [email protected])
Suzanne Villeneuve
Affiliation:
*Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6 (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After 10 years of pursuing sexy handaxes it is probably time to put these coquettish creatures to bed. Readers wishing to continue the debate are courteously directed to our Project Gallery.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 83 , Issue 322 , December 2009 , pp. 1163 - 1170
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiello, L. & Wheeler, P.. 1995. The expensive-tissue hypothesis. Current Anthropology 36: 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, R. 1972. Changing technology and manpower requirements in the engineering industry (Science Policy Research Unit, Research Report 3). Brighton: Sussex University Press.Google Scholar
Bleed, P. 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity 51: 737–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bramble, D. & Lieberman, D.. 2004. Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432: 345–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, B. 1979. Productivity, technology and capital. Lexington (MA): Heath.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1989. From chopper to Celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques, in Torrence, R. (ed.) Time, energy and stone tools: 7–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. 2008. What were they doing in the Oldowan? Lithic Technology 33: 105–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. & Gargett, R.. 1988. Specialization in the Paleolithic. Lithic Technology 17(1): 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. & Hutchings, K.. 1989. Whither the billet flake?, in Amick, D. & Mauldin, R. (ed.) Experiments in lithic technology (British Archaeological Reports International Series 528): 235–57. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Hayden, B., Franco, N. & Spafford, J.. 2000. Keatley Creek lithic strategies and design, in Hayden, B. (ed.) The ancient past of Keatley Creek (Volume 1): 185–212. Burnaby (B. C.): Archaeology Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, D. 2009. Symmetry and humans: reply to Mithen's ‘sexy handaxe theory”. Antiquity 83: 195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsfall, G. 1987. Design theory and grinding stones, in Hayden, B. (ed.) Lithic studies among the contemporary highland Maya: 332–77. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Jones, P. 1980. Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archaeology. World Archaeology 12: 153–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, L. 1980. Experimental determination of stone tool uses: a microwear analysis. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kohn, M. & Mithen, S.. 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, A. 1905. Notes by A. L. Kroeber. American Anthropologist 7: 690–95.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. 1953. Handbook of the Indians of California. Berkeley (CA): California Book Co.Google Scholar
Machin, A. 2008. Why handaxes just aren't that sexy: a response to Kohn & Mithen. Antiquity 82: 761–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machin, A., Hosfield, R. & Mithen, S.. 2006. Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 883–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S. 2008. ‘Whatever turns you on’: a response to Anna Machin, ‘Why handaxes just aren't that sexy’. Antiquity 82: 766–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, A. & Chang, M. L.. 2009. The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. PaleoAnthropology 2009: 77–88.Google Scholar
Potts, R. 1988. Early hominid activities at Olduvai. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pye, D. 1964. The nature of design. London: Studio Vista.Google Scholar
- 1968. The nature of art of workmanship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rust, H. 1905. The obsidian blades of California. American Anthropologist 7: 688–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, K. & Toth, N.. 1993. Making silent stones speak: human evolution and the dawn of technology. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Sheets, P. & Muto, G.. 1972. Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment in lithic technology. Science 175: 632–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shipman, P. & Walker, A.. 1989. The costs of becoming a predator. Journal of Human Evolution 18: 373–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrence, R. 1989. Re-tooling: towards a behavioral theory of stone tools, in Torrence, R. (ed.) Time, energy and stone tools: 57–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zeyher, L. 1977. Zeyher's new guide to cost reduction in plant operations. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar