This paper examines the debate over whether Acheulean handaxe shape results from the intentional imposition of a priorly held mental template upon the lithic material substrate or, alternatively, whether a knapper's intentions related to shape ‘emerge’ through the engagement (in action) of human agency and material affordances. We suggest that imposition of form and emergence of form are not mutually exclusive, and use Lave and Wenger's concept of ‘communities of practice’ to knit these opposed views together to explain the consolidation of homogenous handaxe shape at Boxgrove, c. 500,000 years ago. Here we propose that the consistency in handaxe shape found at sites like Boxgrove is a consequence of the emergent actions of individual knappers being simultaneously constrained by the imposition of social norms. Social norms are referred to in action and are negotiated, understood, and adhered to at the wider group level. Therefore, we propose that contextualizing Acheulean handaxe manufacture within its wider social context will show that handaxe shape was both imposed and emergent, not one or the other.

中文翻译：

---

Acheulean Handaxe 是强加的“心理模板”的结果还是制造中出现的结果？通过在英国 Boxgrove 探索“实践社区”来消除二分法

本文探讨了关于 Acheulean 手斧形状是否是由于有意将先前持有的心理模板强加在岩石材料基板上的结果，或者是否通过人类机构的参与（在行动中）而与形状“出现”有关的敲击者意图的争论和物质保障。我们建议形式的强加和形式的出现并不是相互排斥的，并使用拉夫和温格的“实践社区”概念将这些对立的观点编织在一起，以解释在 Boxgrove 的同质手斧形状的巩固，C. 50万年前。在这里，我们提出，在 Boxgrove 等地点发现的手斧形状的一致性是个体敲击者的紧急行为同时受到社会规范的约束的结果。社会规范在行动中被提及，并在更广泛的群体层面得到协商、理解和遵守。因此，我们建议将阿舍利手斧制造置于其更广泛的社会背景中，这将表明手斧形状既是强加的，也是涌现的，而不是一种或另一种。