EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVES ON BIPOLAR TECHNOLOGY

Abstract

Our introduction to this special edition of Lithic Technology Exploring Variability in Bipolar Technology does not attempt to summarize the papers found in the volume. This is done succinctly and accurately by Tostevin and Shott in this volume’s concluding section (Tostevin & Shott ). Here we briefly discuss a theme recurring in most of the volume’s papers, the importance of simple technologies for exploring the evolution of human behavioral variability (Shea ). Bipolar technology is important for studying the evolution of human behavioral variability because of its ubiquity in the archaeological record. Over and again, humans and their ancestors chose to deploy bipolar techniques in varying social and ecological settings. From the earliest flake production and block modification using hammers and anvils (e.g. Mora and de la Torre ) to late Pleistocene bipolar bladelet production (e.g. Brantingham et al. ), bipolar technology was useful for many different purposes. Bipolar reduction can therefore be considered an example of an exapted technology (sensu Gould and Vrba ), that is, technologies re-introduced for purposes other than those associated with their origins. The ubiquity of bipolar technology in the Stone Age gives it less utility as an “Age” or “Industry” marker (e.g. de la Pena and Wadley ). Its importance lies rather in what it can tell us about the evolution of human behavioral variability and its responsiveness to ecological and social changes. Archaeologists have made considerable strides towards accurately identifying and quantifying traces of bipolar technology on a wide variety of rock types (e.g. de la Pena ; Diez-Martin et al. ; Kuijt et al. ; Leaf ; Verges and Olle ). This has made bipolar technology more visible and thereby more accessible for comparative studies examining the role of simple technologies across the entire archaeological record. Bipolar technology remains unique in this regard. The papers in this volume define, identify, and explain strategic variation in bipolar technology, as they examine the social (e.g. skill [Duke and Pargeter ]), situational (e.g. raw material availability [Gurtov and Eren ] and functional variability [Jeske and Sterner-Miller ]), and structural (e.g. core size [Hiscock ]) variables that place selective pressures on these simple technologies. Together, they join a growing movement in lithic studies away from purely descriptive studies of lithic patterning, towards understanding the behavioral processes that underpin these patterns (e.g. Eren et al. ; Kuhn :; Lewis et al. ; Tostevin ). Human mobility patterns, settlement dynamics and the cultural transmission of technological knowledge are other examples of behavioral and organizational questions that can be suitably investigated using context-specific studies of bipolar technology. Similar questions about human strategic behavioral variability have led to an increased incorporation of evolutionary methods and theory into lithic studies (e.g. Lycett and von CramonTaubadel ; Mackay et al. ). These studies show that “evolution” in archaeology describes more than developmental sequences, straight lines, or ladders (see Langbroek ). These traditional, linear perspectives more accurately referred to as cultural evolutionism (see Dunnell ), underplay the importance of simple technologies in human behavioral evolution. Evolutionary perspectives, on the other hand, aim to understand strategic variation in human behavior and its material manifestations with accommodations for the co-occurrence and reoccurrence of simple and complex technologies (see Prentiss et al. ).