Bits and pieces: Lithic waste products as indicators of Acheulean behaviour at Attirampakkam, India Kumar Akhilesh ⁎, Shanti Pappu ⁎ Sharma Centre for Heritage Education, 28, I Main Road, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai 600004, Tamil Nadu, India abstract article info Article history: Received 14 May 2015 Received in revised form 26 August 2015 Accepted 31 August 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Acheulean Attirampakkam India Experimental knapping Lithic technology Waste flakes Behaviour Inferences on short or long term trends in Acheulean behaviour are primarily derived from studies of lithic chaîne opératoires. With a predominant focus on bifaces and cores, few studies discuss in depth, components of lithic waste products, significant in informing on aspects of technology, skills, transmission of knowledge, or behav- ioural organisation at site and landscape scales. Here, we present perspectives on Acheulean behaviour focusing on lithic waste arising from debitage and façonnage sequences. We draw on excavated assemblages from the Early Pleistocene site of Attirampakkam, India, currently the oldest Acheulean site in South Asia, supplemented by our experimental studies to replicate this technology. The assemblage reflects a fragmented reduction se- quence, with transport of large flakes and partially shaped tools to Attirampakkam, from ‘quarry sites’ located in proximity to raw material sources, followed by later stages in the on-site façonnage of handaxes, primarily on large flake blanks. Acheulean behaviour at this site reflects geographic awareness, planning depths, and strat- egies adopted in anticipation of raw material scarcity at the site. Conservation of raw material and time is indicat- ed by the utilisation and retouch of suitable waste flakes including biface shaping/thinning flakes into small flake tools, indicating multiple uses of handaxes as both tools and ‘cores’. This behaviour occurs along with individual knapping errors denoting lack of adequate control or ability/intention to rectify problems, persisting through time. There is also sparse evidence for intentional platform faceting. Despite assemblage variability through time, we observe technological stasis over this thick Early Pleistocene sequence. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The primary focus for debating Acheulean behaviour lies in the realm of the concept of lithic chaîne opératoires (Roche and Texier, 1991; Soressi and Geneste, 2011; Tostevin, 2011). The complexity of such debates is enhanced by variability arising from the immense dura- tion of the Acheulean (Beyene et al., 2013; Lepre et al., 2011; Pappu et al., 2011) and its vast geographic distribution (Petraglia and Korisettar, 1998). Bifaces form the focus of most studies in addressing issues related to questions of Acheulean ‘tradition’, intelligence, skills, cultural transmission, learning and the individual, technology, and sta- sis and change (Belfer-Cohen and Goren-Inbar, 1994; de la Torre et al., 2008; Goren-Inbar, 2011; Goren-Inbar et al., 2008; Gowlett, 2006; Lycett and Gowlett, 2008; Madsen and Goren Inbar, 2004; McNabb et al., 2004; Newcomer, 1971; Petraglia, 2005; Pope, 2004; Stout et al., 2000, 2014; Shipton and Clarkson, 2015; Sharon et al., 2011; Wynn, 1979, 1995). However, a characteristic feature of the Acheulean lies in behavioural organisation on landscape scales, with assemblages pre- dominantly reflecting aspects of fragmented reduction sequences, further influenced by site taphonomy. Thus, sites, or even levels within them, may reflect sparse or missing assemblage components, of which the most conspicuous are cores and/or bifaces (see Goren-Inbar and Sharon, 2006). In all situations, when present, waste products arising from varied Acheulean debitage and façonnage sequences, assume great significance as indicators of site taphonomy, technology, and be- haviour (Stout et al., 2014). Most of such research on the Acheulean, and in particular on reduc- tion sequences, has a skewed perspective arising primarily from studies in Africa, Europe, and the Levant, with little information from the rich and diverse Acheulean of India, and from much debated assemblages in East or Southeast Asia (Brumm and Moore, 2012; Hou et al., 2000; Li et al., 2014). Addressing this severe geographic lacuna, would not only ‘fill-up’ gaps in our knowledge, but would potentially contribute towards new aspects of Acheulean behaviour in diverse geographic re- gions and environments, with a focus on raw materials often differing from flint, chert, or volcanic rocks commonly studied (but see Santonja, 1996). India assumes great importance in this scenario, with emerging chronological constraints on the Acheulean situating it be- tween the Early Pleistocene (Pappu et al., 2011), and extending possibly till MIS 6-5e (Haslam et al., 2011). This along with its vast spatial distri- bution and assemblage variability in varied geographic and ecological contexts, renders this region important for exploring Acheulean Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 4 (2015) 226–241 ⁎ Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: akhilarchaeo@gmail.com (Kumar Akhilesh), pappu.shanti@gmail.com (S. Pappu). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.045 2352-409X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/jasrep