The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in...

© 2017 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons

Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use,

provided the original author and source are credited

Review History

RSOS-170288.R0 (Original submission) Review form: Reviewer 1 (James Cole) Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form? Yes Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results? Yes Is the language acceptable? Yes Is it clear how to access all supporting data? Yes Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper? No

The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the

Acheulean at Canteen Kopje and implications for the

cognitive evolution of early hominids

Hao Li, Kathleen Kuman, Matt G. Lotter, George M. Leader and Ryan J. Gibbon

Article citation details R. Soc. open sci. 4: 170288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170288

Review timeline

Original submission: 29 March 2017 Revised submission: 27 May 2017 Final acceptance: 1 June 2017

Note: Reports are unedited and appear as submitted by the referee. The review history appears in chronological order.

Note: This manuscript was transferred from another Royal Society journal without peer review.

on August 18, 2018http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/Downloaded from

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/

2

Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper? No Recommendation? Accept as is Comments to the Author(s) Li et al's "The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean and implications for the cognitive evolution of early hominids" is a timely and well written contribution highlighting the seemingly early practice of prepared core technology (Victoria West) in the South African Acheulean. The figures of the cores are clear and certainly (at least to my mind) demonstrate preparation for the removal of large preferential flakes from a prepared core strategy. The text is balanced, eloquent, concise and well supported throughout by reference to relevant literature. There is little that I can (or would want to) suggest to change this paper. Perhaps one thought I have is that the authors tackle in a little more detail the difference in prepared core technology for the extraction of large side struck flakes to make handaxes, vs the diversity of Levallois prepared core technology in regards to points, laminar, and radial flakes. The authors do mention this in their discussion, but I wonder if more could be made of the distinction between the diversity of end product seen in Levallois vs the "monotonous" large flakes for handaxes discussed in this paper in regards to hominin behaviour and cognition. As I have stated, this is a minor point for me as the authors do tackle this issue in the discussion (although it would be nice to see a bit more embellishment on this theme), hence the recommendation that it is published as is.

Review form: Reviewer 2 (Gonen Sharon) Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form? No Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results? No Is the language acceptable? Yes Is it clear how to access all supporting data? Yes Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper? No Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper? I do not feel qualified to assess the statistics Recommendation? Major revision is needed (please make suggestions in comments) Comments to the Author(s) The study applies 3D methodology and statistical and morphological analysis to the study of an assemblage of Victoria West (VW) cores from a single layer in Canteen Kopje (CK). I will be straightforward – such analysis is worth doing only if it reveals new data, a new point-of-view



3

and new interpretation. Unfortunately, the analysis presented in the paper seems to invest great effort in stating the obvious. Anyone looking at a VW core sees that the two faces are asymmetrical. There is no need to scan the cores and run heavy statistical morphometric analysis just to get to the conclusion that they are, indeed, asymmetrical. I feel that the researchers have not demonstrated new observations or interpretations justifying application of the method presented. Below are specific notes and questions regarding the paper: I think that the view of the Acheulian presented in the introduction is oversimplified and incorrectly concentrates on the South African data. I think that looking at the Acheulian as a single stage of stable technology is no longer valid: Early Acheulian, Large Flake Acheulian, Late Acheulian, handaxe only assemblages, Achelo-Yabrudian…The Acheulian is changing and evolving. The description of the site and assemblage is very brief and, as a result, it is hard to evaluate the nature of the assemblage and the observations made. - It is unclear why the authors ignore the other Vaal river sites (Pniel 6, Pliel 7, Power’s Site) and refer to much further sites. - I could not understand what is the volume of the excavated layer b. From what size come the VW cores? - Are the cores in situ or did they result from a secondary deposit? They come from large clast sediment – alluvial? And, in particular, when looking at the layer above layer b, layer a, which is a mix of Late and Middle Stone Age and Fouresmith together. - What does the lithic assemblage of layer b comprise? Are there LCT’s? Other types of cores, small tools? What other raw materials were used? The way the core assemblage is presented, with no context, makes is hard to evaluate. - Local terminology is used without explanation – e.g. what are koppies (Line 131?). I am not sure all readers are familiar with the local terminology. As a result of these omissions, I find the claims regarding the raw material unconvincing. Claims such as that andesite was used because it was available should be supported by data. The claim that the original size of the core was of boulder clast size (line 133) is also unsubstantiated.

“The lateral and distal convexities are also important features of the Victoria West cores”. (line 156) – Why is that so? What can we learn from this data? More importantly, the authors refer to “organize core” as the primary technology present in the layer below the VW layer B. But what do they mean by this term? What is the difference between these cores and the VW cores? Why is VW an evolution from the organized core? Many of the claims in the paper are hard to evaluate because we do not know what organized cores are. One of the main problems of the study is that it is focused on the cores only and ignores the LCTs from the assemblage. As a result, I think many of the observations are misleading. This is the emphasis in the discussion of the striking platforms – basing technological and morphological claims about the SP from the scars remaining on the core leads to misinterpretation (in my view) of the nature of the VW SP as well as to problematic claims about the type of hammer used etc. I also think that the discussion misses the primary difference between VW and Levallois – the isolation of the platform in Levallois which is nonexistent in VW. I am surprised by the claim that VW cores show large variability in size. Is that because the VW collections studied to date were all very selective? This could have been the primary contribution of the paper – for the first time a study of a complete in-situ assemblage of cores and not a selective surface collection. The claims are based on supplementary pictures, and we do not know if the assemblage has additional core types. The cores in supplementary pictures look heavily weathered, so I cannot judge what I think about the definition of the layer b cores as VW cores.



4

Because the discussion is focused exclusively on the cores, the fact that most LCTs from the Vaal sites are cleavers is missed. Judging the type of the resulting tool from the shape of the scar is dangerous. In conclusion, I see three primary problems in the paper: 1. The application of a new method did not teach us anything new about VW cores. Using sophisticated tools to confirm what we already know is stating the obvious. 2. The archaeological data is not presented and, as a result, the VW cores are “out of context” making many claims and observations problematic and hard to evaluate. 3. The study of the cores alone without the rest of the assemblage, in particular the LCTs, results in problematic observations and interpretations of the data.

Review form: Reviewer 3 Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form? Yes Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results? Yes Is the language acceptable? Yes Is it clear how to access all supporting data? Yes Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper? No Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper? No Recommendation? Accept with minor revision (please list in comments) Comments to the Author(s) Royal Society Manuscript ID: RSOS-170288 Li et al., Royal Society Open Science Review General comments This is a good paper that deserves to be published. The work is well organized, well written and well researched. The authors present data about the Victoria West knapping technology at the Acheulian site of Canteen Kopje with an age of around 1 Ma. This is claimed as the oldest evidence in the world for the use of this complex volumetric technology. After a brief introduction describing, in general, the question of stasis or dynamics during the very long phase of the Acheulian, there is an introduction to the Canteen Kopje site context and excavation. This is followed by a presentation of the methodology used to study the VW core sample which is clearly presented and relatively innovative. Results confirm the intentional, highly standardized nature of the hierarchical core reduction method of VW. Although the result is not necessarily ‘new’ (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006), the methodology provides a new way to achieve objective confirmation of the complex volumetric and hierarchical nature of these cores. The authors also explain the similarities and differences that this highly standardized prepared core technology



5

bears with the (more diversified) Levallois core reduction methods. Finally, some remarks concerning the implications on Acheulian cognition levels in this timeframe are made. Specific comments and suggestions - The name of the site could be added into the title: “Earliest Victoria West prepared core technology at the Acheulian site of Canteen Kopje: implications for the evolution of hominin cognition” - We recommend the authors use the word ‘hominin’ rather than ‘hominid’. - (Introduction) The timeframe for the duration of the Acheulian should be qualified in accordance to its geographical distribution, with the appropriate bibliographical references. - The paper is missing some more adequate description of the overall assemblage (15000 artifacts from Pit 6). In the introduction the authors state that the Canteen Kopje assemblage is described in Leader (2013), which is an un-published PhD thesis. It would, therefore, be useful to provide at least some basic information about the rest of the assemblage of which these VW cores form a part. Their context is certainly vital to correctly assessing the cognition levels of the hominin artisans and also of the significance and meaning of the toolkit as a whole. - What are the features of the basal Early Acheulian assemblage and how does it differ from the VW core assemblage? - Some parts of this manuscript do overlap with previous publications (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006). - What about the flakes? Have any flakes been identified that belong to any parts of the operative scheme of Victoria West production? Especially, are there any of the preferential flakes in the assemblage? Have they been recognized as blanks among the handaxes and cleavers? If so, it would be interesting to provide some photos of this material as well. If VW blanks could be identified among the LCT supports, this would perhaps give credence the proposal that specific flake pre-forms were intentionally made to be transformed into either cleavers of handaxes; as claimed by the authors. - Also, can a size range preference for cleavers and handaxes be confirmed from the preferential flake negative measurements? - Given the size range of these cores, it seems that the preferential flakes qualify as ‘Large Flakes’ in the strict sense (Sharon, 2009 and references). It seems therefore that at least a short explanation of the ‘Large Flake Acheulian’ is in order (in the Introduction and/or Discussion/Conclusion). - Concerning the dating, it is not really made clear whether the age evaluation is reliable or not: ‘preliminary’ and ‘unpublished data’; broad comparison with a paleomagnetic date at a nearby site… is this really reliable or perhaps more explanations are needed here? This is especially important if the authors wish to maintain their claim of ‘oldest’ evidence for prepared core technology. - The VW cores are made exclusively from Andesite: are there any other raw materials available nearby? Which ones? What is the size-range of the naturally available cobbles? - More specifically; what are the differences between this assemblage and the older nearby site of Rietputs? Why is this concept “…well beyond the organized core reduction strategies…” used at Rietputs (where there are also cores with preferential removals)? - It may be preferable to use the word ‘knapping’ instead of ‘shaping’ when speaking about core preparation. - Write the French “chaîne opératoire” in italics. - Finally, does the highly standardized nature of these cores really imply a “lack of technological flexibility” in relation to Levallois technologies or is it indicative of a strongly binding techno-social tradition? - Figures and table are clear and reference list is commendable.



6

Decision letter (RSOS-170288) 19-May-2017 Dear Dr Li On behalf of the Editors, I am pleased to inform you that your Manuscript RSOS-170288 entitled "The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean and implications for the cognitive evolution of early hominids" has been accepted for publication in Royal Society Open Science subject to minor revision in accordance with the referee suggestions. Please find the referees' comments at the end of this email. The reviewers and handling editors have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the comments and revise your manuscript. One aspect that is raised by the critical reviewer, and one which I think warrants some response, is the issue of whether your chosen analytical techniques simply "state the obvious". I suspect you disagree strongly, and would urge you to articulate in a sentence or two why the CT imaging techniques are preferable to more qualitative evaluations of flakes shapes, symmetries etc. I would also appreciate a single sentence explaining to the interested, but inexpert, reader just what a "core" is. This is an interdisciplinary journal and I would like articles to be accessible to a wider readership. In my field, earth sciences, cores are something else altogether.

• Ethics statement If your study uses humans or animals please include details of the ethical approval received, including the name of the committee that granted approval. For human studies please also detail whether informed consent was obtained. For field studies on animals please include details of all permissions, licences and/or approvals granted to carry out the fieldwork.

• Data accessibility It is a condition of publication that all supporting data are made available either as supplementary information or preferably in a suitable permanent repository. The data accessibility section should state where the article's supporting data can be accessed. This section should also include details, where possible of where to access other relevant research materials such as statistical tools, protocols, software etc can be accessed. If the data has been deposited in an external repository this section should list the database, accession number and link to the DOI for all data from the article that has been made publicly available. Data sets that have been deposited in an external repository and have a DOI should also be appropriately cited in the manuscript and included in the reference list. If you wish to submit your supporting data or code to Dryad (http://datadryad.org/), or modify your current submission to dryad, please use the following link: http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=RSOS&manu=RSOS-170288

• Competing interests Please declare any financial or non-financial competing interests, or state that you have no competing interests.

• Authors’ contributions All submissions, other than those with a single author, must include an Authors’ Contributions section which individually lists the specific contribution of each author. The list of Authors should meet all of the following criteria; 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published.



7

All contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be included in the acknowledgements. We suggest the following format: AB carried out the molecular lab work, participated in data analysis, carried out sequence alignments, participated in the design of the study and drafted the manuscript; CD carried out the statistical analyses; EF collected field data; GH conceived of the study, designed the study, coordinated the study and helped draft the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication.

• Acknowledgements Please acknowledge anyone who contributed to the study but did not meet the authorship criteria.

• Funding statement Please list the source of funding for each author. Please note that we cannot publish your manuscript without these end statements included. We have included a screenshot example of the end statements for reference. If you feel that a given heading is not relevant to your paper, please nevertheless include the heading and explicitly state that it is not relevant to your work. Because the schedule for publication is very tight, it is a condition of publication that you submit the revised version of your manuscript within 7 days (i.e. by the 28-May-2017). If you do not think you will be able to meet this date please let me know immediately. To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rsos and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript and upload a new version through your Author Centre. When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the referees and upload a file "Response to Referees" in "Section 6 - File Upload". You can use this to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the referees. When uploading your revised files please make sure that you have: 1) A text file of the manuscript (tex, txt, rtf, docx or doc), references, tables (including captions) and figure captions. Do not upload a PDF as your "Main Document". 2) A separate electronic file of each figure (EPS or print-quality PDF preferred (either format should be produced directly from original creation package), or original software format) 3) Included a 100 word media summary of your paper when requested at submission. Please ensure you have entered correct contact details (email, institution and telephone) in your user account 4) Included the raw data to support the claims made in your paper. You can either include your data as electronic supplementary material or upload to a repository and include the relevant doi within your manuscript 5) All supplementary materials accompanying an accepted article will be treated as in their final form. Note that the Royal Society will neither edit nor typeset supplementary material and it will be hosted as provided. Please ensure that the supplementary material includes the paper details where possible (authors, article title, journal name).



8

Supplementary files will be published alongside the paper on the journal website and posted on the online figshare repository (https://figshare.com). The heading and legend provided for each supplementary file during the submission process will be used to create the figshare page, so please ensure these are accurate and informative so that your files can be found in searches. Files on figshare will be made available approximately one week before the accompanying article so that the supplementary material can be attributed a unique DOI. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Royal Society Open Science and I look forward to receiving your revision. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Kind regards, Alice Power Editorial Coordinator Royal Society Open Science [email protected] on behalf of Jon Blundy Subject Editor, Royal Society Open Science [email protected] Associate Editor Comments to Author: Comments to the Author: Two of the three referees are very positive about the paper, whereas the third has a number of reservations. The addition of some more contextual information should address the suggestions of the third referee and also go some way to mollifying the second. Please do read through and extract the constructive comments from both reviewers as it will make the paper more accessible and readable for non-specialists. Reviewer comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author(s) Li et al's "The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean and implications for the cognitive evolution of early hominids" is a timely and well written contribution highlighting the seemingly early practice of prepared core technology (Victoria West) in the South African Acheulean. The figures of the cores are clear and certainly (at least to my mind) demonstrate preparation for the removal of large preferential flakes from a prepared core strategy. The text is balanced, eloquent, concise and well supported throughout by reference to relevant literature. There is little that I can (or would want to) suggest to change this paper. Perhaps one thought I have is that the authors tackle in a little more detail the difference in prepared core technology for the extraction of large side struck flakes to make handaxes, vs the diversity of Levallois prepared core technology in regards to points, laminar, and radial flakes. The authors do mention this in their discussion, but I wonder if more could be made of the distinction between the diversity of end product seen in Levallois vs the "monotonous" large flakes for handaxes discussed in this paper in regards to hominin behaviour and cognition. As I have stated, this is a minor point for me as the authors do tackle this issue in the discussion (although it would be nice to see a bit more embellishment on this theme), hence the recommendation that it is published as is.



9

Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author(s) The study applies 3D methodology and statistical and morphological analysis to the study of an assemblage of Victoria West (VW) cores from a single layer in Canteen Kopje (CK). I will be straightforward – such analysis is worth doing only if it reveals new data, a new point-of-view and new interpretation. Unfortunately, the analysis presented in the paper seems to invest great effort in stating the obvious. Anyone looking at a VW core sees that the two faces are asymmetrical. There is no need to scan the cores and run heavy statistical morphometric analysis just to get to the conclusion that they are, indeed, asymmetrical. I feel that the researchers have not demonstrated new observations or interpretations justifying application of the method presented. Below are specific notes and questions regarding the paper: I think that the view of the Acheulian presented in the introduction is oversimplified and incorrectly concentrates on the South African data. I think that looking at the Acheulian as a single stage of stable technology is no longer valid: Early Acheulian, Large Flake Acheulian, Late Acheulian, handaxe only assemblages, Achelo-Yabrudian…The Acheulian is changing and evolving. The description of the site and assemblage is very brief and, as a result, it is hard to evaluate the nature of the assemblage and the observations made. - It is unclear why the authors ignore the other Vaal river sites (Pniel 6, Pliel 7, Power’s Site) and refer to much further sites. - I could not understand what is the volume of the excavated layer b. From what size come the VW cores? - Are the cores in situ or did they result from a secondary deposit? They come from large clast sediment – alluvial? And, in particular, when looking at the layer above layer b, layer a, which is a mix of Late and Middle Stone Age and Fouresmith together. - What does the lithic assemblage of layer b comprise? Are there LCT’s? Other types of cores, small tools? What other raw materials were used? The way the core assemblage is presented, with no context, makes is hard to evaluate. - Local terminology is used without explanation – e.g. what are koppies (Line 131?). I am not sure all readers are familiar with the local terminology. As a result of these omissions, I find the claims regarding the raw material unconvincing. Claims such as that andesite was used because it was available should be supported by data. The claim that the original size of the core was of boulder clast size (line 133) is also unsubstantiated.

“The lateral and distal convexities are also important features of the Victoria West cores”. (line 156) – Why is that so? What can we learn from this data? More importantly, the authors refer to “organize core” as the primary technology present in the layer below the VW layer B. But what do they mean by this term? What is the difference between these cores and the VW cores? Why is VW an evolution from the organized core? Many of the claims in the paper are hard to evaluate because we do not know what organized cores are. One of the main problems of the study is that it is focused on the cores only and ignores the LCTs from the assemblage. As a result, I think many of the observations are misleading. This is the emphasis in the discussion of the striking platforms – basing technological and morphological claims about the SP from the scars remaining on the core leads to misinterpretation (in my view) of the nature of the VW SP as well as to problematic claims about the type of hammer used etc. I also think that the discussion misses the primary difference between VW and Levallois – the isolation of the platform in Levallois which is nonexistent in VW.



10

I am surprised by the claim that VW cores show large variability in size. Is that because the VW collections studied to date were all very selective? This could have been the primary contribution of the paper – for the first time a study of a complete in-situ assemblage of cores and not a selective surface collection. The claims are based on supplementary pictures, and we do not know if the assemblage has additional core types. The cores in supplementary pictures look heavily weathered, so I cannot judge what I think about the definition of the layer b cores as VW cores. Because the discussion is focused exclusively on the cores, the fact that most LCTs from the Vaal sites are cleavers is missed. Judging the type of the resulting tool from the shape of the scar is dangerous. In conclusion, I see three primary problems in the paper: 1. The application of a new method did not teach us anything new about VW cores. Using sophisticated tools to confirm what we already know is stating the obvious. 2. The archaeological data is not presented and, as a result, the VW cores are “out of context” making many claims and observations problematic and hard to evaluate. 3. The study of the cores alone without the rest of the assemblage, in particular the LCTs, results in problematic observations and interpretations of the data. Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author(s) Royal Society Manuscript ID: RSOS-170288 Li et al., Royal Society Open Science Review General comments This is a good paper that deserves to be published. The work is well organized, well written and well researched. The authors present data about the Victoria West knapping technology at the Acheulian site of Canteen Kopje with an age of around 1 Ma. This is claimed as the oldest evidence in the world for the use of this complex volumetric technology. After a brief introduction describing, in general, the question of stasis or dynamics during the very long phase of the Acheulian, there is an introduction to the Canteen Kopje site context and excavation. This is followed by a presentation of the methodology used to study the VW core sample which is clearly presented and relatively innovative. Results confirm the intentional, highly standardized nature of the hierarchical core reduction method of VW. Although the result is not necessarily ‘new’ (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006), the methodology provides a new way to achieve objective confirmation of the complex volumetric and hierarchical nature of these cores. The authors also explain the similarities and differences that this highly standardized prepared core technology bears with the (more diversified) Levallois core reduction methods. Finally, some remarks concerning the implications on Acheulian cognition levels in this timeframe are made. Specific comments and suggestions - The name of the site could be added into the title: “Earliest Victoria West prepared core technology at the Acheulian site of Canteen Kopje: implications for the evolution of hominin cognition” - We recommend the authors use the word ‘hominin’ rather than ‘hominid’. - (Introduction) The timeframe for the duration of the Acheulian should be qualified in accordance to its geographical distribution, with the appropriate bibliographical references. - The paper is missing some more adequate description of the overall assemblage (15000 artifacts from Pit 6). In the introduction the authors state that the Canteen Kopje assemblage is described in Leader (2013), which is an un-published PhD thesis. It would, therefore, be useful to provide at least some basic information about the rest of the assemblage of which these VW cores form a part. Their context is certainly vital to correctly assessing the cognition levels of the hominin artisans and also of the significance and meaning of the toolkit as a whole. - What are the features of the basal Early Acheulian assemblage and how does it differ from the VW core assemblage?



11

- Some parts of this manuscript do overlap with previous publications (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006). - What about the flakes? Have any flakes been identified that belong to any parts of the operative scheme of Victoria West production? Especially, are there any of the preferential flakes in the assemblage? Have they been recognized as blanks among the handaxes and cleavers? If so, it would be interesting to provide some photos of this material as well. If VW blanks could be identified among the LCT supports, this would perhaps give credence the proposal that specific flake pre-forms were intentionally made to be transformed into either cleavers of handaxes; as claimed by the authors. - Also, can a size range preference for cleavers and handaxes be confirmed from the preferential flake negative measurements? - Given the size range of these cores, it seems that the preferential flakes qualify as ‘Large Flakes’ in the strict sense (Sharon, 2009 and references). It seems therefore that at least a short explanation of the ‘Large Flake Acheulian’ is in order (in the Introduction and/or Discussion/Conclusion). - Concerning the dating, it is not really made clear whether the age evaluation is reliable or not: ‘preliminary’ and ‘unpublished data’; broad comparison with a paleomagnetic date at a nearby site… is this really reliable or perhaps more explanations are needed here? This is especially important if the authors wish to maintain their claim of ‘oldest’ evidence for prepared core technology. - The VW cores are made exclusively from Andesite: are there any other raw materials available nearby? Which ones? What is the size-range of the naturally available cobbles? - More specifically; what are the differences between this assemblage and the older nearby site of Rietputs? Why is this concept “…well beyond the organized core reduction strategies…” used at Rietputs (where there are also cores with preferential removals)? - It may be preferable to use the word ‘knapping’ instead of ‘shaping’ when speaking about core preparation. - Write the French “chaîne opératoire” in italics. - Finally, does the highly standardized nature of these cores really imply a “lack of technological flexibility” in relation to Levallois technologies or is it indicative of a strongly binding techno-social tradition? - Figures and table are clear and reference list is commendable.

Author's Response to Decision Letter for (RSOS-170288) See Appendix A.

Decision letter (RSOS-170288.R1) 01-Jun-2017 Dear Dr Li, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean at Canteen Kopje and implications for the cognitive evolution of early hominids" is now accepted for publication in Royal Society Open Science. You can expect to receive a proof of your article in the near future. Please contact the editorial office ([email protected] and [email protected]) to let us know if



12

you are likely to be away from e-mail contact. Due to rapid publication and an extremely tight schedule, if comments are not received, your paper may experience a delay in publication. Royal Society Open Science operates under a continuous publication model (http://bit.ly/cpFAQ). Your article will be published straight into the next open issue and this will be the final version of the paper. As such, it can be cited immediately by other researchers. As the issue version of your paper will be the only version to be published I would advise you to check your proofs thoroughly as changes cannot be made once the paper is published. In order to raise the profile of your paper once it is published, we can send through a PDF of your paper to selected colleagues. If you wish to take advantage of this, please reply to this email with the name and email addresses of up to 10 people who you feel would wish to read your article. On behalf of the Editors of Royal Society Open Science, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal. Best wishes, Andrew Dunn Senior Publishing Editor Royal Society Open Science [email protected]



Appendix A

Dear Dr Li

On behalf of the Editors, I am pleased to inform you that your Manuscript RSOS-170288 entitled "The

Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean and implications for the cognitive

evolution of early hominids" has been accepted for publication in Royal Society Open Science subject

to minor revision in accordance with the referee suggestions. Please find the referees' comments at the

end of this email.

The reviewers and handling editors have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor

revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the comments and revise your

manuscript. One aspect that is raised by the critical reviewer, and one which I think warrants some

response, is the issue of whether your chosen analytical techniques simply "state the obvious". I suspect

you disagree strongly, and would urge you to articulate in a sentence or two why the CT imaging

techniques are preferable to more qualitative evaluations of flakes shapes, symmetries etc. I would also

appreciate a single sentence explaining to the interested, but inexpert, reader just what a "core" is. This

is an interdisciplinary journal and I would like articles to be accessible to a wider readership. In my

field, earth sciences, cores are something else altogether.

Response: A statement of the clear advantage of using CT scanning is added, see page 6. Our study

does not simply state the obvious, but it provides insights in understanding the preparation process of

VW cores. Calculation of the asymmetry index demonstrates quantitatively both the asymmetrical

nature of VW cores and the degree of asymmetry. The CT scanning technique also allows us to

demonstrate the intentional maintenance of lateral and distal edge convexities, which are not often

recognized in previous studies. In addition, geometric morphometric analysis of the shape of VW cores

can only be easily and accurately achieved by using the 3D models of those cores.

An explanation of “core” in the Palaeolithic archaeology is added, see page 3.

Associate Editor Comments to Author:

Comments to the Author:

Two of the three referees are very positive about the paper, whereas the third has a number of

reservations. The addition of some more contextual information should address the suggestions of the

third referee and also go some way to mollifying the second. Please do read through and extract the

constructive comments from both reviewers as it will make the paper more accessible and readable for

non-specialists.

Response: More contextual information has been added in the text, see page 4.

Reviewer comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author(s)

Li et al's "The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in the Acheulean and implications for

the cognitive evolution of early hominids" is a timely and well written contribution highlighting the

seemingly early practice of prepared core technology (Victoria West) in the South African Acheulean.



The figures of the cores are clear and certainly (at least to my mind) demonstrate preparation for the

removal of large preferential flakes from a prepared core strategy. The text is balanced, eloquent,

concise and well supported throughout by reference to relevant literature. There is little that I can (or

would want to) suggest to change this paper.

Perhaps one thought I have is that the authors tackle in a little more detail the difference in prepared

core technology for the extraction of large side struck flakes to make handaxes, vs the diversity of

Levallois prepared core technology in regards to points, laminar, and radial flakes. The authors do

mention this in their discussion, but I wonder if more could be made of the distinction between the

diversity of end product seen in Levallois vs the "monotonous" large flakes for handaxes discussed in

this paper in regards to hominin behaviour and cognition. As I have stated, this is a minor point for me

as the authors do tackle this issue in the discussion (although it would be nice to see a bit more

embellishment on this theme), hence the recommendation that it is published as is.

Reviewer: 2


The study applies 3D methodology and statistical and morphological analysis to the study of an

assemblage of Victoria West (VW) cores from a single layer in Canteen Kopje (CK). I will be

straightforward – such analysis is worth doing only if it reveals new data, a new point-of-view and new

interpretation. Unfortunately, the analysis presented in the paper seems to invest great effort in stating

the obvious. Anyone looking at a VW core sees that the two faces are asymmetrical. There is no need to

scan the cores and run heavy statistical morphometric analysis just to get to the conclusion that they

are, indeed, asymmetrical. I feel that the researchers have not demonstrated new observations or

interpretations justifying application of the method presented.

Response: By using the CT scanning technique, we were able to scan very large cores and not only

quantitatively confirm the asymmetrical nature of the two surfaces of VW cores, but also demonstrate

the intentional creation of lateral and distal convexities of cores. Thus, comprehensive comparisons

between VW cores and Levallois cores can be documented. In addition, 3D models of VW cores

produced by scanning allow us to conduct a geometric morphometric analysis of the shape of those

cores.

Below are specific notes and questions regarding the paper:

I think that the view of the Acheulian presented in the introduction is oversimplified and incorrectly

concentrates on the South African data. I think that looking at the Acheulian as a single stage of stable

technology is no longer valid: Early Acheulian, Large Flake Acheulian, Late Acheulian, handaxe only

assemblages, Achelo-Yabrudian…The Acheulian is changing and evolving.

Response: It is also our suggestion that the Acheulean itself changed with the time, as shown by the

evidence we listed in the second paragraph of introduction part. Our study in this paper provides

additional evidence to confirm this point.

The description of the site and assemblage is very brief and, as a result, it is hard to evaluate the nature

of the assemblage and the observations made.

- It is unclear why the authors ignore the other Vaal river sites (Pniel 6, Pliel 7, Power’s Site) and

refer to much further sites.

Response: Other Acheulean sites along the Vaal River are added in the text, see page 4.

- I could not understand what is the volume of the excavated layer b. From what size come the VW



cores?

Response: The excavated volume for layer B in Pit 6 is about 6 m3.

- Are the cores in situ or did they result from a secondary deposit? They come from large clast

sediment – alluvial? And, in particular, when looking at the layer above layer b, layer a, which is a mix

of Late and Middle Stone Age and Fouresmith together.

Response: Because all VW cores are buried in coarse alluvial deposits, it is clear that the artifacts are

deposited in a secondary context. See page 4 for the deposit description. Layer A is an Aeolian deposit

with LSA, MSA and Fauresmith artefacts that seals the unconformable surface of the VW alluvial

deposit.

- What does the lithic assemblage of layer b comprise? Are there LCT’s? Other types of cores, small

tools? What other raw materials were used? The way the core assemblage is presented, with no context,

makes is hard to evaluate.

Response: We add more contextual information for the whole assemblage from layer B, please see

pages 4 and 5.

- Local terminology is used without explanation – e.g. what are koppies (Line 131?). I am not sure

all readers are familiar with the local terminology.

Response: We add an explanation for koppies in the text, see page 4.

As a result of these omissions, I find the claims regarding the raw material unconvincing. Claims such

as that andesite was used because it was available should be supported by data. The claim that the

original size of the core was of boulder clast size (line 133) is also unsubstantiated.

Response: We have explained in the text that andesite is frequently exposed in the nearby koppies in

the form of large clasts. Stratigraphy exposed during excavation of Pit 6 also shows that the

boulder-sized andesite clasts occurred in the gravel layer. See page 5 and figure 1c.

“The lateral and distal convexities are also important features of the Victoria West cores”. (line 156) –

Why is that so? What can we learn from this data?

Response: The intentional maintenance of lateral and distal convexities of cores is used to produce a

flake with pre-planned shape, and this is regarded as a key attribute in defining the Levallois

technology. The confirmation of such an attribute on the VW cores shows the sophistication of the VW

core technology.

More importantly, the authors refer to “organize core” as the primary technology present in the layer

below the VW layer B. But what do they mean by this term? What is the difference between these cores

and the VW cores? Why is VW an evolution from the organized core? Many of the claims in the paper

are hard to evaluate because we do not know what organized cores are.

Response: We add an explanation for the organized core in the text, see page 4. In general, the

organized cores are not fully prepared, but VW cores can fit well within the strictly defined prepared

core technology.

One of the main problems of the study is that it is focused on the cores only and ignores the LCTs from

the assemblage. As a result, I think many of the observations are misleading. This is the emphasis in the

discussion of the striking platforms – basing technological and morphological claims about the SP from

the scars remaining on the core leads to misinterpretation (in my view) of the nature of the VW SP as

well as to problematic claims about the type of hammer used etc. I also think that the discussion misses

the primary difference between VW and Levallois – the isolation of the platform in Levallois which is

nonexistent in VW.

Response: It is true that our discussion of the striking platforms of VW cores is based on the negative



scars remaining on the cores. This is because the striking platforms have been removed during the final

knapping of preferential flakes, and thus we can only estimate the possible existence of platform

preparation during detaching the final removals. We note this issue on page 8.

I am surprised by the claim that VW cores show large variability in size. Is that because the VW

collections studied to date were all very selective? This could have been the primary contribution of the

paper – for the first time a study of a complete in-situ assemblage of cores and not a selective surface

collection. The claims are based on supplementary pictures, and we do not know if the assemblage has

additional core types. The cores in supplementary pictures look heavily weathered, so I cannot

judge what I think about the definition of the layer b cores as VW cores.

Response: As the reviewer mentioned, our analysis of a complete excavated assemblage provides a rare

case to reveal the size variation of VW cores. Specimens in the supplementary figure 3 did experience

a certain degree of weathering, but the outlines of flaking scars on these cores are still recognizable.

Because the discussion is focused exclusively on the cores, the fact that most LCTs from the Vaal sites

are cleavers is missed. Judging the type of the resulting tool from the shape of the scar is dangerous.

Response: In the VW assemblage we studied, the number of cleavers (n=76) is indeed larger than

handaxes (n=35) in our assemblage. However, the preferential scars on most cores suggests that

cleavers were less commonly made with the method than handaxes, because the shape of working edge

(cleaver bit) would need to be further shaped to achieve the cleaver form.

In conclusion, I see three primary problems in the paper:

1. The application of a new method did not teach us anything new about VW cores. Using

sophisticated tools to confirm what we already know is stating the obvious.

Response: Again, by using the CT scanning technique, we can not only quantitatively confirm the

asymmetrical nature of the two surfaces of VW cores, but also demonstrate the intentional keeping of

lateral and distal convexities of cores by hominids. In addition, 3D models of VW cores produced by

scanning allow us conducting a geometric morphometric analysis of the shape of VW cores. See page 6.

2. The archaeological data is not presented and, as a result, the VW cores are “out of context” making

many claims and observations problematic and hard to evaluate.

Response: Relevant information has been added in the text, see pages 4 and 5.

3. The study of the cores alone without the rest of the assemblage, in particular the LCTs, results in

problematic observations and interpretations of the data.

Response: Information regarding the LCTs in the assemblage has been added, see page 9.

Reviewer: 3


Royal Society Manuscript ID: RSOS-170288 Li et al., Royal Society Open Science

Review

General comments

This is a good paper that deserves to be published. The work is well organized, well written and well

researched. The authors present data about the Victoria West knapping technology at the Acheulian site

of Canteen Kopje with an age of around 1 Ma. This is claimed as the oldest evidence in the world for

the use of this complex volumetric technology. After a brief introduction describing, in general, the

question of stasis or dynamics during the very long phase of the Acheulian, there is an introduction to

the Canteen Kopje site context and excavation. This is followed by a presentation of the methodology



used to study the VW core sample which is clearly presented and relatively innovative. Results confirm

the intentional, highly standardized nature of the hierarchical core reduction method of VW. Although

the result is not necessarily ‘new’ (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006), the methodology provides a new way

to achieve objective confirmation of the complex volumetric and hierarchical nature of these cores. The

authors also explain the similarities and differences that this highly standardized prepared core

technology bears with the (more diversified) Levallois core reduction methods. Finally, some remarks

concerning the implications on Acheulian cognition levels in this timeframe are made.

Specific comments and suggestions

- The name of the site could be added into the title: “Earliest Victoria West prepared core technology at

the Acheulian site of Canteen Kopje: implications for the evolution of hominin cognition”

Response: According to reviewer’s suggestion, we change the title to “The Victoria West: earliest

prepared core technology in the Acheulean at Canteen Kopje and implications for the cognitive

evolution of early hominids”.

- We recommend the authors use the word ‘hominin’ rather than ‘hominid’.

Response: Although this is a popular word to use nowadays, there is considerable debate on the

taxonomic implications of the term hominin, and we prefer to use the traditional terms.

- (Introduction) The timeframe for the duration of the Acheulian should be qualified in accordance to

its geographical distribution, with the appropriate bibliographical references.

Response: We now state the timeframe for the Acheulean in terms of different areas, i.e., Africa and

Eurasian continent. See page 3.

- The paper is missing some more adequate description of the overall assemblage (15000 artifacts from

Pit 6). In the introduction the authors state that the Canteen Kopje assemblage is described in Leader

(2013), which is an un-published PhD thesis. It would, therefore, be useful to provide at least some

basic information about the rest of the assemblage of which these VW cores form a part. Their context

is certainly vital to correctly assessing the cognition levels of the hominin artisans and also of the

significance and meaning of the toolkit as a whole.

Response: Information concerning the overall assemblage is added, please see page 4.

- What are the features of the basal Early Acheulian assemblage and how does it differ from the VW

core assemblage?

Response: An explanation of the differences is added in the text, please see page 4.

- Some parts of this manuscript do overlap with previous publications (Sharon and Beaumont, 2006).

Response: We do realize that some of our conclusions are consistent with the results acquired by

Sharon and Beaumont (2006), but our study focuses on a detailed quantitative analysis of VW cores

base on CT scanning technique, and the new insights about those cores that have been achieved.

- What about the flakes? Have any flakes been identified that belong to any parts of the operative

scheme of Victoria West production? Especially, are there any of the preferential flakes in the

assemblage? Have they been recognized as blanks among the handaxes and cleavers? If so, it would be

interesting to provide some photos of this material as well. If VW blanks could be identified among the

LCT supports, this would perhaps give credence the proposal that specific flake pre-forms were

intentionally made to be transformed into either cleavers of handaxes; as claimed by the authors.

Response: No such flakes have been identified at present, probably because the blanks were

transformed into LCTs. Other evidence also confirms the use of preferential flakes to make LCTs, e.g.,

handaxes and cleavers. In the Victoria West assemblage, handaxes and cleavers are mainly made on

large flake blanks, with actually only two specimens are made directly on cobbles. In addition, the sizes



of handaxes and cleavers are consistent with the sizes of the preferential flakes calculated from the

negative scars retained on cores. See page 9 for the explanation.

- Also, can a size range preference for cleavers and handaxes be confirmed from the preferential flake

negative measurements?

Response: We provide measurement data for cleavers and handaxes in this assemblage. It does confirm

the size consistency between large flakes and LCTs. See page 9.

- Given the size range of these cores, it seems that the preferential flakes qualify as ‘Large Flakes’ in

the strict sense (Sharon, 2009 and references). It seems therefore that at least a short explanation of the

‘Large Flake Acheulian’ is in order (in the Introduction and/or Discussion/Conclusion).

Response: A statement of the Large Flake Acheulean tradition for the VW core assemblage is added in

the text. See page 9.

- Concerning the dating, it is not really made clear whether the age evaluation is reliable or not:

‘preliminary’ and ‘unpublished data’; broad comparison with a paleomagnetic date at a nearby site… is

this really reliable or perhaps more explanations are needed here? This is especially important if the

authors wish to maintain their claim of ‘oldest’ evidence for prepared core technology.

Response: We believe that the cosmogenic nuclide burial method of Al26/Be10 discussed in Leader

(2013) will, with further work on the deposits in our excavations, be able to confirm the age estimate

we cite for the Victoria West core assemblage. But for now, we can only cite the Beaumont and Vogel

age published in 2006.

- The VW cores are made exclusively from Andesite: are there any other raw materials available nearby?

Which ones? What is the size-range of the naturally available cobbles?

Response: Hornfels is another raw material used at the site, but in a quite small proportion. For instance,

there is 98.2% of LCTs made on andesite. The remaining is made on hornfels. Regarding the size of

cobbles, we have said in the text that “boulder-sized clasts being the most commonly used”. See page 5.

- More specifically; what are the differences between this assemblage and the older nearby site of

Rietputs? Why is this concept “…well beyond the organized core reduction strategies…” used at

Rietputs (where there are also cores with preferential removals)?

Response: A definition for the organized cores is added in the text, which can show their differences

from the VW cores. See page 4.

- It may be preferable to use the word ‘knapping’ instead of ‘shaping’ when speaking about core

preparation.

Response: We have changed the word “shaping” to “knapping”. See pages 7 and 10.

- Write the French “chaîne opératoire” in italics.

Response: We have changed this term to the italics format. See page 12.

- Finally, does the highly standardized nature of these cores really imply a “lack of technological

flexibility” in relation to Levallois technologies or is it indicative of a strongly binding techno-social

tradition?

Response: Here, we still prefer the opinion that there is a lack of technological flexibility when we

compare the Acheulean VW cores with the MSA Levallois cores. Multiple variants of Levallois are

often coexistent in the Middle Stone Age sites, as well as in later Acheulean sites (see Wilkins et al.’s

comparisons). Levallois has been suggested as a defining feature of the MSA. The flexibility of flaking

patterns in MSA does not mean that the techno-social binding in this period was not strong, but just the

reverse. We argue that the difference is related to archaic vs. modern human behavior.

- Figures and table are clear and reference list is commendable.



The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in...

Documents

Transcript of The Victoria West: earliest prepared core technology in...