'Whatever turns you on': a response to Anna Machin, 'why handaxes just aren't that sexy'

Antiquity, Sept, 2008 by Steven Mithen

Evaluating theories and testing hypotheses that relate to the no-longer observable behaviour of hominin species which have no close analogue in the modern world is an obvious challenge. Machin argues that Kohn & Mithen (1999) did not do so in a sufficiently rigorous manner concerning their so-called 'Sexy Handaxe Theory' (SHT). She is right, of course. Indeed how could it be otherwise when there is always room for improvement by subjecting previously published ideas to newly available data-sets and new types of critical thinking. Machin provides some valuable arguments, bringing together a probably unparalleled breadth of knowledge about the archaeological record, evolutionary theory and sexual selection. Ultimately, however, I am not persuaded that she makes handaxes any less sexy than they had previously appeared.

Kohn & Mithen had provided their own criterion for evaluating the efficacy of their theory: its ability to relate together previously disparate features of the archaeological record, this being a criterion that I have long adopted as a means for evaluating theories within archaeology (Mithen 1990). This is widely applied in science: ultimately it is the ability of Darwin's theory of natural selection to show how so many previously disparate features of the natural world are manifestations of the same process that persuades us of its power. The SHT connects together (1) the presence of high degrees of symmetry in some handaxes, (2) their patterns of discard, especially with regard to that of near pristine handaxes and their remarkable abundance at some sites, (3) their persistence in the archaeological record and (4) the transition to the flake-based levallois methods, (5) the occasional handaxe oddities, such as the very large or very small handaxes. The SHT shows how all of these are related and derive from the influence of sexual selection on the production and use of handaxes. By removing this influence, the archaeological record falls apart again into disparate and unconnected observations.

Machin fails to provide any alternative theory that could connect such previously disparate features of the archaeological record. Indeed, she doesn't even provide any alternative idea to explain any one of these features of the archaeological record, such as the high degree of symmetry in some handaxes or the fact that so many appear to have been discarded while remaining functionally viable.

I fully agree with Machin that it would be desirable to identify the sex and age of those who made handaxes and then test whether there is a male bias and whether it is those individuals who are at the peak of their sexual activity that are predominately making the symmetrical handaxes. We hardly need reminding by her that this is not possible. Nevertheless, this does not make the SHT any less viable; it simply means that two of its hypotheses cannot be tested (Machin appears to be a little bit muddled about the difference between evaluating theories and testing hypotheses that derive from those theories). There are other aspects of hominin behaviour that remain just as un-testable at present, bur which Machin appears to take for granted. She confidently asserts, for instance, that pair-bonding and male provisioning existed among Homo heidelbergensis. This is not an established fact. It is a claim made on the basis of modelling energy budgets that involves high degrees of uncertainty. I remain un-persuaded, partly because I find it inconceivable that the emergence of such new sexual and social behaviour would have left no traces in the archaeological record. My view is that such changes only occurred after 300 000 years ago and are detected by changes in both human anatomy and the archaeological record: the transition from the Acheulian to Middle Stone Age/Mousterian technologies.

Machin places considerable importance on the notion that the production of handaxes is a cooperative, group activity rather than that of an individual. While I can appreciate how the extraction of raw material might have been a group activity, I remain unclear how the making of a handaxe can be anything other than the work of an individual, is Machin suggesting that a nodule was passed around a group, with each member removing a flake in turn? Even if we acknowledge the role of cooperative activity in the acquisition of raw material, this will simply emphasise the abilities of some individuals over those of others. Watching the remarkable levels of cooperation that the members of Manchester United achieve when playing as a team, does not prevent the individual technical skill of Ronaldo, the brute strength of Rooney or the leadership of Giggs to be recognised; indeed by performing within a group these become far more evident than would have been possible if one had simply watched such footballers performing alone.

Contrary to Machin, my experience of working with flint knappers and seeking to make handaxes myself, suggest to me that strength is vital to handaxe production, especially in the early stages. Indeed it is the combination of strength and controlled precision which is so clearly indicated by a rindy made handaxe. If strength is required for working flint, my guess is that it is even more so the case for working materials such as basalt and quartzite. I also disagree with Machin regarding the possibility of evaluating the extent of social awareness by hominins. There has been a vast amount of recent literature drawing on comparative studies, fossil and archaeological evidence regarding the social intelligence of hominins (e.g. Dunbar 1996; 2004), of which social awareness is a key element. Machin appears unduly pessimistic and seemingly unaware of such literature (although I happen to be aware that she knows it very well indeed) by stating that 'unfortunately it is not possible to subject this attribute to further analysis as such behaviour is not preserved in the record'.