So they talk about this as if it were a new innovation at the time—but could it be that this kind of woodworking was more widespread and this was just the only example to survive? Could it have been a standard part of the Acheulian toolkit?
That's probably the assumption they're working with, because historians do it all the time. Document survival for the pre-modern period is so poor that it doesn't take very many examples to demonstrate (for all intents and purposes) that something was widespread.