Abstract

The evolution of the hominin hand has been widely linked to the use and production of flaked stone tool technologies. After the earliest handheld flake tools emerged, shifts in hominin hand anatomy allowing for greater force during precision gripping and ease when manipulating objects in-hand are observed in the fossil record. Previous research has demonstrated how biometric traits, such as hand and digit lengths and precision grip strength, impact functional performance and ergonomic relationships when using flake and core technologies. These studies are consistent with the idea that evolutionary selective pressures would have favoured individuals better able to efficiently and effectively produce and use flaked stone tools. After the advent of composite technologies during the Middle Stone Age and Middle Palaeolithic, fossil evidence reveals differences in hand anatomy between populations, but there is minimal evidence for an increase in precision gripping capabilities. Furthermore, there is little research investigating the selective pressures, if any, impacting manual anatomy after the introduction of hafted composite stone technologies (‘handles’). Here we investigated the possible influence of tool-user biometric variation on the functional performance of 420 hafted Clovis knife replicas. Our results suggest there to be no statistical relationships between biometric variables and cutting performance. Therefore, we argue that the advent of hafted stone technologies may have acted as a ‘performance equaliser’ within populations and removed (or reduced) selective pressures favouring forceful precision gripping capabilities, which in turn could have increased the relative importance of cultural evolutionary selective pressures in the determination of a stone tool’s performance.

Details

Title
Hafted technologies likely reduced stone tool-related selective pressures acting on the hominin hand
Author
Mika, Anna 1 ; Lierenz, Julie 2 ; Smith, Andrew 3 ; Buchanan, Briggs 4 ; Walker, Robert S. 5 ; Eren, Metin I. 6 ; Bebber, Michelle R. 3 ; Key, Alastair 7 

 University of Cambridge, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2188 5934); Kent State University, Department of Anthropology, Kent, USA (GRID:grid.258518.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0656 9343) 
 Kent State University, Department of Anthropology, Kent, USA (GRID:grid.258518.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0656 9343); Ohio State University, Department of Anthropology, Columbus, USA (GRID:grid.261331.4) (ISNI:0000 0001 2285 7943) 
 Kent State University, Department of Anthropology, Kent, USA (GRID:grid.258518.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0656 9343) 
 University of Tulsa, Department of Anthropology, Tulsa, USA (GRID:grid.267360.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 2160 264X) 
 University of Missouri, Department of Anthropology, Columbia, USA (GRID:grid.134936.a) (ISNI:0000 0001 2162 3504) 
 Kent State University, Department of Anthropology, Kent, USA (GRID:grid.258518.3) (ISNI:0000 0001 0656 9343); Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Department of Archaeology, Cleveland, USA (GRID:grid.421249.8) (ISNI:0000 0000 9785 5814) 
 University of Cambridge, Department of Archaeology, Cambridge, UK (GRID:grid.5335.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2188 5934) 
Pages
15582
Publication year
2023
Publication date
2023
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
e-ISSN
20452322
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2866638420
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.