TY - JOUR
T1 - Going big versus going small
T2 - Lithic miniaturization in hominin lithic technology
AU - Pargeter, Justin
AU - Shea, John J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dan David Prize; Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, Grant/ Award Number: 1542310; Leakey Foundation; Dan David Foundation; National Science Foundation
Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank Jayne Wilkins, Chris Kiathipes, Ceri Shipton and three anonymous reviewers for their generous feedback and comments on an earlier draft of the article. Justin Pargeter thanks the Leakey Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the Dan David Foundation for their generous financial support for his research. Both authors thank their wives for advice and forbearance during the preparation of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2019/3/1
Y1 - 2019/3/1
N2 - Lithic miniaturization was one of our Pleistocene ancestors' more pervasive stone tool production strategies and it marks a key difference between human and non-human tool use. Frequently equated with “microlith” production, lithic miniaturization is a more complex, variable, and evolutionarily consequential phenomenon involving small backed tools, bladelets, small retouched tools, flakes, and small cores. In this review, we evaluate lithic miniaturization's various technological and functional elements. We examine archeological assumptions about why prehistoric stoneworkers engaged in processes of lithic miniaturization by making small stone tools, small elongated tools, and small retouched and backed tools. We point to functional differences that motivate different aspects of lithic miniaturization and several instances where archeological systematics have possibly led archeologists to false negative findings about lithic miniaturization. Finally, we suggest productive avenues by which archeologists can move closer to understanding the complex evolutionary forces driving variability in lithic miniaturization.
AB - Lithic miniaturization was one of our Pleistocene ancestors' more pervasive stone tool production strategies and it marks a key difference between human and non-human tool use. Frequently equated with “microlith” production, lithic miniaturization is a more complex, variable, and evolutionarily consequential phenomenon involving small backed tools, bladelets, small retouched tools, flakes, and small cores. In this review, we evaluate lithic miniaturization's various technological and functional elements. We examine archeological assumptions about why prehistoric stoneworkers engaged in processes of lithic miniaturization by making small stone tools, small elongated tools, and small retouched and backed tools. We point to functional differences that motivate different aspects of lithic miniaturization and several instances where archeological systematics have possibly led archeologists to false negative findings about lithic miniaturization. Finally, we suggest productive avenues by which archeologists can move closer to understanding the complex evolutionary forces driving variability in lithic miniaturization.
KW - behavioral variability
KW - cutting and piercing tools
KW - hominin technology
KW - lithic miniaturization
KW - projectile weaponry
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063603876&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063603876&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/evan.21775
DO - 10.1002/evan.21775
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30924224
AN - SCOPUS:85063603876
SN - 1060-1538
VL - 28
SP - 72
EP - 85
JO - Evolutionary anthropology
JF - Evolutionary anthropology
IS - 2
ER -