J.A.J. Gowlett (University of Liverpool)

Elongation in stone artefacts can be produced systematically only with skill and effort. In a traditional view of human evolution Upper Palaeolithic blades stood proxy for the ‘cleverness’ of modern humans. Discoveries of far earlier blades were set apart from these pinnacles through their lack of punch-striking and of Upper Palaeolithic reduction strategies. But it is the end product that counts, and the value of elongation as an indicator is that it occurs by accident only in the rarest cases: as systematic production it has to be part of a focused strategy, and to represent intentional effort. In the case of flake blades, we now know that such a phenomenon can occur as much 400,000 years ago, in Asia, Africa and Europe. This takes it back clearly into the Acheulean, as at Kapthurin in Kenya or Qesem in Israel. What then of the hand-axes themselves? Their elongation has scarcely been a consideration. We measure the proportions of hand-axe series by fitting lines through centroids in the data, usually more interested in the average than in the extremes, and with little attempt to map the relevant theory. Again, however, the most elongated bifaces do not occur by accident. The difficulty in making them ensures that they represent an approximation to design targets, perhaps even different targets from those sought in most associated specimens. This paper evaluates their elongation in a context of comparisons. It shows that elongation usually reflects tight control over a number of variables, including especially thickness. Whereas elongation in wooden artefacts is something that we take for granted as coming from nature, in stone artefacts it represents the development of new concepts, possibly in the time range 600,000 – 400,000 years ago in the deep origins period of Homo sapiens (sensu lato).