3.9 Article

A preliminary survey on hand grip and hand-tool morphometrics in three different stone tools

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE-REPORTS
卷 23, 期 -, 页码 567-573

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2018.11.012

关键词

Experimental archaeology; Ergonomics; Affordance; Grasp; Lithic technology

资金

  1. Junta de Castilla y Leon - European Social Funds through the Consejeria de Educacion, Junta de Castilla y Leon [BDNS 376062]
  2. Spanish Government (Atapuerca Project) [CGL2015-65387-C3-3-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Humans have evolved a distinctive relationship with objects (tools and technology), which has strongly influenced their anatomical and cognitive capacities. The human hand is functionally specialized for manipulation and, in terms of cognition, tools are generally integrated into the body scheme when handled. Stone tools can supply information on the evolution of this cognitive reciprocal relationship. Despite the many studies on stone tool morphology, information on hand-tool system is scanty. In this preliminary survey, we measure hand-tool distances in three lithic instruments of different size (cleaver, handaxe, convergent sidescraper), in order to investigate basic patterns associated with their handling patterns. Tool size does influence the distance from the wrist and the aperture of the hand. The associated grasping differences depend more on the tool length than on the hand morphology or dimension. Nonetheless, hand-tool metrics covariation patterns are different according to the different tool types, suggesting specific factors associated with their respective haptic experience. Females display, on average, more variability than males when handling the sidescraper, but not for the power-gripped cleaver and handaxe. We propose a new method to analyze hand-tool metrics according to the haptic interaction. These kinds of studies provide basic mandatory information which can be used to develop proper ergonomic and cognitive perspectives in tool extension and cognitive archaeology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据