Jump to content

Hand axe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.202.59.3 (talk) at 00:46, 5 October 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

[[Image:Handaxe by Johndate to the beginning of the [20th] century… their study does not comply completely satisfactorily to any typological list|Gab }}. Page 59.</ref>}} Taking this into account, the following is to be considered a guide, based on traditional concepts, strongly influenced by the so-called «Bordes method» (a basically morphological classification system used by some schools, which is possibly now out-dated) that may be useful for general use. This classification is sufficiently trustworthy when dealix: 1.3 < L/m < 1.6; and base roundness index: 2.75 < L/a < 3.75), but when seen from the side it is seen to be a flat biface (m/e > 2.35). Occasionally, although this does not form part of its definition, they are objects worked with greater skill, better finished, with less cortex and they are more balanced, they may also have more acute, rectilinear edges making them more efficient.
Their name, which also comes from the Latin (cor means heart), was suggested by Boucher de Perthes in 1857, but did not become generally used until it became used by Henri Breuil, Víctor Commont and Georges Goury in the 1920s.
Bordes defined them mathematically and described them as flat bifaces with rounded, short bases and a pointed or oval terminal zone. He defined eight variants, including an elongated form (L/m > 1.6) and another that is more irregular that has been called Subcordiform. The cordiform bifaces were common in both the Achelean and the Mousterian. |-----

|

|

Lanceate


The lanceate bifaces are the most aesthetically pleasing and have often become the typical image of developed Achelean bifaces. Their name, obviously, is due to their «similar shape to the blade of a lance» and it was also coined by Boucher de Perthes («lance axe») and it quickly became popular.
Bordes defined a lanceate biface as elongated (L/m > 1.6) with rectilinear or slightly convex edges, extremely acute apex and rounded base (2.75 < L/a < 3.75), they are often globular to the extent that it is not a flax biface (m/e < 2.35), at least in its basal zone.
They are usually balanced, well finished, with perfectly straightened edges formed by careful grinding. They are highly characteristic of the latter stages of the Achelean - or the Micoquian, as it is known – and of the Mousterian in the Achelean Tradition (they are closely related to the Micoquian bifaces described below)).
A biface with a lanceate profile that is more coarsely worked and irregular, possibly due to a lack of finishing it is usually called a «ficron style biface» from the French term.[1] |-----

|

|

Micoquien


The Micoquian biface receives its name from the French cave of La Micoque in the community of Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (in the Dordogne), which also gave its name to a period at the end of the Achelean, the Micoquien. This period is characterized by the development of its technology. It is currently thought that the Micoquien was not a separate culture from the Achelean, but one of its final phases, and that Micoquian bifaces may be one of the few types of biface that can be used as a chronological marker, that is a so-called index fossil. The biface is characteristic of the end of the Achelean and was developed during the Riss-Würm interglacial period.
Micoquien bifaces are very similar to lanceate ones, they are almond-shaped (2.75 < L/a < 3.75), elongated L/m > 1.6) and thick (m/e < 2.35) with a rounded, often unworked base, but with markedly concave edges and an extremely acute point.
Both lanceate and Micoquian bifaces are usually associated together, in fact it is possible that reiterated sharpening of a lanceate biface gave rise to a Micoquian biface. They are common to all the areas of the Old World.[2] |-----

| rowspan="3" |

O

V

A

L

|

|

Discoid


Discoid bifaces are entirely circular or oval in shape and are characterized by a base rounding index of greater than 3.75 and an elongation index of less than 1.3. They are rounded both at their base as well as at their terminal zone. If their manufactured form is shallow, they are difficult to distinguish from discoid cores of centripetal extraction, or if they are simple bifaces they look like simple flakes that have been retouched or chopping tools made from flakes.
It is common that this type of biface arises from the continuous resharpening of the active region of a longer biface, that slowly becomes shorter, like a pencil. They can also be broken bifaces that have been recycled and reworked.[3]
Discoid bifaces cannot be used as chronological indicators, although particularly finely worked examples appear among the Solutrean culture in Périgord.[4] |-----

|

|

Ovoid


Ovoid bifaces are those that are roughly oval (a kind of curve whose description is slightly ambiguous but which is more or less shaped like an egg). They were described very early on: Boucher de Perthes published a definition in 1857 which has been little changed since then.
Bordes stated that ovoid bifaces are similar to discoid one but more elongated (1.3 < L/m < 1.6) and logically they have a base rounding index related to the oval bifaces (greater than 3.75) and both the base and the terminal zone are rounded (if the base is short they are almost symmetrical), although the greatest width should be below the longitudinal midway point.
It has been suggested that ovoid bifaces appeared in the middle of the Achelean, although they cannot be used for dating purposes and along with the amygdaloids they are the most common type of biface among the Achelean cultures of the Old World. |-----

|

|

Elliptical


Elliptical bifaces are also known as Limandes (from the French word meaning flounder). They have three axes of symmetry, bilateral, bifacial and horizontal. The latter means that if the base is short they are virtually identical at the terminal end, sometimes making it difficult to decide how to orient the piece.
In practice they are equal to the ovoid tools in all their dimensional ratios, except that the elliptical bifaces are usually more elongated (L/m > 1.6) and their maximum width (m) is nearer to their mid length.
Bordes explained that elliptical bifaces are found throughout the Achelean and into the Mousterian, with the only difference being that the finishing became more careful and balanced over time. Bordes usually differentiated between flat elliptical bifaces (m/e > 2.35, «true Limandes») from thick elliptical bifaces (m/e < 2.35, «Protolimandes»).

|}

Non-classic bifaces

Despite the attempts of many experts to develop a biface typology based on objective data, especially François Bordes and Lionel Balout who used a hand axe’s dimensions as criteria, numerous examples still escape classification apart from using systems that require either the subjective or personal judgement of the researcher or which require a lot of professional experience in order to distinguish the relevant factors. For this reason Bordes created the group called «non-classic bifaces» to which mathematic indexes cannot be applied.[5]

  • Nucleiform bifaces: It is difficult to identify this type of biface as it is difficult to determine if a piece is a true biface or simply a core with modified edges that was occasionally used as a tool. A piece could also be a blank or a chance occurrence. Despite their rough appearance nucleiform bifaces were present in both the Achelean and the Mousterian.
Nucleiform biface from the Achelean site at Torralba, in Soria (Spain).
  • Cleaver-bifaces: These are bifaces whose apex is neither pointed nor rounded, they possess a relatively wide terminal edge that is transversal to the morphological axis. This edge is usually more or less sub-rectilinear, but also slightly concave or convex. Despite dealing with hand axes that are incompatible with mathematical indexes they are sometimes included within the classic types as they have a balanced well-finished form. Cleaver-bifaces were defined by Jean Chavaillón in 1958 under the term «Biface with terminal bevel» (biface à biseau terminal[6]), while Bordes simply called them «cleavers» (hachereaux[7]); the current term was proposed in French by Guichard in 1966 (biface-hachereau). The term biface-cleaver was proposed in Spanish in 1982 (bifaz-hendidor), with «biface» used as a noun referring to the typological group a piece belongs to due to its bifacial modelling and «cleaver» used as an adjective because of its morphology. That is to say, technically they are bifaces but morphologically they are similar to cleavers,[8] although their personality is completely distinct:

Some authors count them as cleavers (F. Bordes, 1961, p 63), which J. Chavaillon does not agree with; the carving technique used to create a biface is not in any way similar to the manufacturing process for cleavers

— Alimen, 1978, op. cit. page 121.

In reality the multi-use capability of a biface, including this type, conflicts with the technological simplicity of a cleaver, even though their morphology and function may be similar.

  • Abbevillean style bifaces: This hand axe takes its name from the French municipality of Abbeville, where they were first found in a marl quarry in the valley of the River Somme. They were initially associated with the Abbevillean culture, for which they are an index fossil (although paradoxically these hand axes are particularly scarce at the Abbeville site). The Abbevillean was considered to be the European antecedent of the Achelean until recently, although it has now become integrated as an initial archaic phase of the latter, even if it does not always appear in the stratigraphic register. In the same way, it has been shown that archaic hand axes such as those from Abbeville can be found throughout the Lower Palaeolithic, without this suggesting any kind of chronological or cultural reference, which is why the term Abbevillean style biface has been used.[9] These hand axes were worked only using a hard hammer, without any retouching of the edges, leaving them extremely sinuous. They are clearly asymmetrical, varied and irregular, with their shape generally determined by that of the stone that acted as a core (this makes it impossible to find two of the same shape). Their base is covered by cortex along with large areas of the sides and they are very thick.
Abbevillean style biface from the Achelean archaeological site of San Isidro, in Madrid (Spain).
Partial biface from the Achelean strata of the Manzanares valley in Madrid (Spain).
  • Partial bifaces: These are hand axes, which have been worked in limited areas, without the knapping affecting more than a small part of the core. However, a tool with the morphology of a hand axe has been obtained with only a few blows, although this nearly always depends on the correct choice of core. They are pieces that are often barely recognizable as chopping tools, but their general aspect and finishing means they a considered as bifaces. On occasions the reason they have been considered as bifaces has been due to the extreme age of the industry to which they belong, on other occasions, they are unfinished pieces, although others show a clear economy of effort:

A knapping so incomplete, but so careful, added to the morphology of the core, allows us to talk of a finished hand axe, that was not worked more because it was not necessary, thereby saving energy.

— Benito del Rey y Benito Álvarez, page 175.[10]

Tools sometimes categorized as bifaces

Hand axes constitute an important group within the panoply of artefacts from the Lower Palaeolithic, and more particularly the Achelean. They are particularly important in the open air archaeological sites (L. H. Keelley has suggested that they are less common in cave sites[11]). Due to their size and technological design hand axes have often been considered to be fundamentally different from tools made from flakes (such as racloirs, scrapers and punches etc.) which has led to a distinction being made between the so-called group of flake utensils and group of core utensils. Hand axes, chopping tools and trihedral picks can be considered as core utensils, which were commonly manufactured out of stones, blocks or rock nodules. However this grouping is problematic as all these tools were often also fabricated from flakes, although obviously from large flakes. Another common suggestion is to refer to flake tools as «micro industry», as opposed to the more general size referred to as «macro industry», which includes the tools mentioned above plus the cleavers. However, this scheme also runs into problems as some scrapers are as big as hand axes, or put the other way, there are some hand axes that are as small as scrapers (and the same is true of the other types of tool mentioned). Apart from the above, associating hand axes with chopping tool and cleavers is a problem from any point of view.

  • Firstly, it is true that the most elaborated chopping tools and partial hand axes are interlinked as it is often difficult to distinguish between them. But the concept of chopping tools is not only based on their lack of formal standardization (which is typical of hand axes), it also includes the possibility that the pieces are not tools, but in fact shallow cores, which is unthinkable for the bifaces (except the nucleiforms).
  • In the case of choppers the inclusion is more doubtful for reasons discussed above, this is despite the fact that in his popular 1961 typology Bordes put them in the same grouping. Nobody denies that hand axes and cleavers would occasionally have served for similar tasks, but their technological design is diametrically opposed (as numerous experts have shown).
  • For some time trihedral picks were considered a specialized type of hand axe. However, since they have been closely studied and classified[12] it has become clear that they should be considered as a separate category.

Another group of tools commonly associated with hand axes is the biface leafpoint tools from the Lower Palaeolithic and above all from the Middle Palaeolithic in the Old World. The difference between the two types is based on the latter’s fine, light finishing that is carried out using a soft hammer and in a more specialized morphology that suggests a specific function, possibly as the point of a projectile or a knife.[13] Representatives of these tools include well known examples from the classic specialized literature:

The term leaf piece should be prefixed to leaf point, as many of them are not pointed. They have been found sporadically in a number of Mousterian sites in France, but they are most common in central European Mousterian sites and African sites from the end of the Aterian

— Bordes, 1961, op. cit., page 41
  • The biface leafpoint tools of central Europe are called blattspitzen. They are without doubt projectile points belonging to the Middle Palaeolithic with a leaf-shaped form. They are often dual pointed and very flat, to such an extent that they are similar to Solutrean laurel leaf blades and it is only possible to distinguish the two from their archaeological context. Blattspitzen survived in some Upper Palaeolithic cultures and, as Denise de Sonneville-Bordes has pointed out, the pieces from the eastern European Szeletien culture (both blattspitzen and Micoquian bifaces) could be the link that connects the tradition of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic bifacial objects with those from the Upper Palaeolithic and beyond.[14]
  • Central European blattspitzen
    Central European blattspitzen
  • Aterian leafpoint piece
    Aterian leafpoint piece
  • Stillbay leafpoint piece
    Stillbay leafpoint piece
  • Leafpoint piece, S'baikia, Algeria
    Leafpoint piece, S'baikia, Algeria
  • Hand axes found in Africa come from both the Aterian culture of North Africa and the Stillbay culture from the east of the continent.[15] Both these cases relate to Mousterian cultures, although they are relatively late and have their own style, at the end of the so-called African Middle Stone Age. In both cases a variety of objects are found, triangular, oval and other leafpoint, there are also invasive hand axes and unifaces.

The importance of the hand axe

Many people originally denied that modern day humans evolved from inferior beings. The initial finding of human fossils such as the Neanderthals or of Homo erectus (clumsily interpreted) appear to support the hypothesis that we are descended from ignorant savages that survived solely thanks to their brute force. The hand axe played a very important role in breaking this prejudice. The publications of John Frere, in Britain, and more importantly of Boucher de Perthes, in France, throughout the 19th Century described pieces that were balanced, full of symmetry and crafted with a surprising formal purity. Juan Vilanova i Piera published similar works in Spain during the 19th Century and this work was continued by José Pérez de Barradas and Casiano del Prado at the start of the 20th Century. It was therefore realised that such tools could only have been made by intelligent, even numinous minds with a certain aesthetic:

Art passed through a long formative period before becoming beautiful; but this does not mean that it ever stopped being a sincere and grandiose art, sometime more sincere and grandiose than beautiful; in mankind there is a creative nature that is manifested as soon as its existence is assured. When he was not worried or fearful, this demigod acting in tranquillity, found the material in his surroundings to breathe life into his spirit.

— Goethe, Conversations with Eckermann.
Finely worked lanceate hand axe from the San Isidro site near Madrid.

As André Leroi-Gourhan explained,[16] it is important to ask what was understood of art in such distant times, above all taking into account the different psychologies of non-modern humans and ourselves. The archaeological records that he handled led Leroi-Gourhan to be surprised by the rapid progress towards symmetry and balance. He felt that he could recognize beauty in the strictest sense of the word in early prehistoric tools made during the Achelean:

It seems difficult to admit that these beings did not experience a certain aesthetic satisfaction, they were excellent craftsmen that knew how to choose their material, repair defects, orient cracks with total precision, drawing out a form from a crude flint core that corresponded exactly to their desire. Their work was not automatic or guided by a series of actions in strict order, they were able to mobilize in each moment reflection and, of course, the pleasure of creating a beautiful object.

— Leroi-Gourhan, 1977, op. cit. page 35.

However, we should not lose our perspective: many authors only refer to exceptional pieces, the majority of hand axes certainly tended to symmetry, but they do not necessarily awaken a sense of the aesthetic. In the majority of cases of we are talking about a selected series of the most striking pieces, mainly collections that were made during the 19th century or the beginning of the 20th, when a profound lack of knowledge regarding prehistoric technology prevented a clear recognition of human actions in the crudest objects. Other collections were made by aficionados, whose interests were not scientific, so that they only collected the best, those objects they considered to be the most outstanding, abandoning the humbler elements that were sometimes the key to interpreting an archaeological site. However, there are exceptions, there are sites methodically studied by experts where there are abundant hand axes that are magnificently carved, causing the archaeologists to express admiration for those that produced these works:

Such is the perfection of the carving on some hand axes that they give the impression that the artist took great pleasure in them per se, at least apparently, as the working does not make the pieces any more efficient. At any rate, we are unable to pronounce from this remove whether it was art or the utility of the hand axe that was being sought by making them so well. Although, in our heart of hearts we are sure that they were searching for beauty, aesthetics, as they could have achieved the same efficiency with cruder pieces.[17]

The discovery in 1998 of an oval hand axe of excellent workmanship in the Sima de los Huesos in the Atapuerca Mountains mixed in with the fossil remains of Homo heidelbergensis reignited this controversy. Given that this is the only lithic remains from this section of the site (that was possibly a cemetery), combined with the piece’s qualities has meant that it received special treatment, it was even baptized Excalibur and it became a star item.[18] However, the symbolic meaning of this example in particular, and hand axes in general, has multiplied in recent years, feeding both scientific and more general debate and literature.

Very large Handaxe from Furze Platt, Berkshire, Great Britain

The opinion of Martín Almagro Basch, a former professor at the Complutense University of Madrid, serves as a counterargument:[19]

Art is always the same, it is only possible to call someone an artist if they know how to create, within objective limits, the equivalent of the numinous complex experienced individually and expressed in a suitable manner in relation to the society in which the artist lives. In this was it is possible to distinguish an essentially artistic piece from a useful tool, although this may also be beautiful. When a prehistoric man was able to achieve the marvels that are the Achelean axes, he did not make a work of art; nor did he make a work of art when he used his skill and experience to make a house or adapt rock shelters or caves for living or sanctuary.

— Martín Almagro

What seems clear in this controversy is that, basically, a hand axe can be interpreted as a sign of intelligence. However, the paradox is that, within the wide range of Achelean objects, hand axes are one of the simplest tools to make, they do not require as much planning as other types of object, generally made from flakes that are less striking, but without a doubt, more sophisticated.

It has been noted above that typical hand axes appeared more than a million years ago.[20] Although it is now known that they are the heritage of a number of human species, with Homo ergaster the earliest, up until 1954 there was no solid evidence regarding who fabricated hand axes: in that year, in Ternifine, Algeria, Camille Arambourg discovered remains that he called "Atlanthropus", along with some hand axes.[21] All the species associated with hand axes (from Homo ergaster to neanderthalensis) show an advanced intelligence that in some cases is accompanied by modern features such as a relatively sophisticated technology, systems to protect against inclement weather (construction of huts, control of fire, clothes), certain signs of spiritual awareness (early indications of art such as adorning the body, carving of bones, ritual treatment of bodies, the development of articulated language) etc. Hand axes should be considered as nothing more than another of the many signs of the intellectual development of primitive humans.

References

  1. ^ Ficron is a word used by farmers in the Somme region. The ficron is the point of a blade located at the end of a pole that allows peasants to push their boats along canals in flooded fields (Bordes, 1961, op. cit., page 58, nota 1).
  2. ^ Examples of sites where they have been found include such European sites as Valle del Manzanares in Madrid, Spain, Swanscombe in England and La Micoque in France as well as Oum-Qatafa and Tabún in Asia and Sidi-Zin in Africa, among others. Brézillon, Michel (1969). Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire. Éditeur Larousse, Paris. ISBN 2-03-075437-4. Page 156.
  3. ^ Benito Álvarez, José Manuel (2002). Aportaciones al conocimiento del Achelense en la Meseta Norte. Universidad de Salamanca (Tesis Doctoral, inédita). Page 558.
  4. ^ Bordes, François (1961). "Considérations générales sur les bifaces". Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux. Pages 49-55.. The quote is from page 53 and the figure regarding the dimensions is from page 51.
  5. ^ Bordes, François (1961). "Bifaces non classiques, disques, boules polyédriques et bolas". Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux. Pages 67-69.
  6. ^ Alimen, Marie-Henriette (avec la collaboration de José Zuate y Zuber) (1978). "Les bifaces: considerations morphologiques et technologiques". L'évolution de l'Acheuléen au Sahara nord-occidental. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Meudon, France. Pages 120-121.
  7. ^ Bordes, François (1961). "Bifaces des types classiques". Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux. Pages 57-66.. The Bordes typology singularly fails for cleavers and biface-cleavers, demonstrating an aspect of both types of tool, especially the cleavers, previously faced with more coherence by a classification scheme posed by Jacques Tixier: Tixier, Jacques (1956). "Le hachereau dans l'Acheuléen nord-africain. Notes typologiques". Congrès Préhistorique de la France. XVe Session. Poitiers-Angoulême..
  8. ^ Benito del Rey, Luis (1982). "Comentarios sobre hendidores en España, útiles de Paleolítico Inferior y Medio". Galaecia. Tomo 7/8. Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Facultad de Geografía e Historia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Page 17.
  9. ^ Benito del Rey, Luis (1982). "Aportación a un estudio tecnomorfológico del bifaz". Studia Zamorensia. III. Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca, Colegio Universitario de Zamora. ISSN 0211-1837.. pages 305-323.
  10. ^ Benito del Rey Luis y Benito Álvarez, José-Manuel (1998). "El análisis tipológico: los bifaces". Métodos y materias instrumentales en Prehistoria y Arqueología (la Edad de la Piedra Tallada más antigua). Volume II: Tecnología y tipología. Gráficas Cervántes, Salamanca. ISBN 84-95195-05-4.
  11. ^ Keeley, Lawrence H. (1993). "Microwear Analysis of Lithics". The Lower Palaeolithic site at Hoxne, England. The University of Chicago Press, London. ISBN 0-226-76111-8.. Pages 129-149.
  12. ^ Leroy-Prost, Christiane; Dauvois, Michel y Leroy, Jean-Pierre (1981). "Projet pour un F.T.A. du groupe des trièdres de l'Acheuléen nord-africain". Préhistoire Africaine. Réunis par Colette Roubet, Henri-Jean Hugot et Georges Souville. Editions ADPF, Paris.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ Bordes, François (1961). "Pièces foliacées bifaces". Typologie du Paléolithique ancien et moyen. Impriméries Delmas, Bordeaux. Page 41.
  14. ^ Sonnevile-Bordes, Denise (1961). L'áge de la pierre. Éditeur P.U.F., collection Qu sais-je?, Paris. Page 106.
  15. ^ Leroi-Gourhan, André (1980). "El Paleolítico Medio". La Prehistoria. Publisher Labour, Barcelona. ISBN 84-335-9309-9.
  16. ^ Leroi-Gourhan, André (1977). "Esbozo del Arte". El Arte y el Hombre, Tomo 1. Fournier, S. A., Vitoria. ISBN 84-320-2001-X.
  17. ^ Benito del Rey, Luis y Benito Álvarez, José Manuel (1992). "La Salamanca Paleolítica". Congreso de Historia de Salamanca 1989, Tomo 1. Gráficas Ortega, S. A., Salamanca. ISBN 84-604-3130-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). Page 160.
  18. ^ Rivera, Alicia (8 January 2003). "Un hacha hallada en Atapuerca indica que ya había ritos funerarios hace 400.000 años". El País. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
  19. ^ Almagro Basch, Martín (1958). "La Prehistoria". Historia General del Arte. Vol. 1. Barcelona: Montaner y Simón, S. A. p. 16.
  20. ^ Some archaeologists such as Chavaillon (op. cit., 1994) have evidence of hand axes that are 1.2 million years old in Melka Kunturé (Ethiopia), but the oldest, from Konso-Gardula, could be 1.9 million years old: Corbella, Josep; Carbonell, Eudald; Moyà, Salvador y Sala, Robert (2000). Sapiens. El largo camino de los homínidos hacia la inteligencia. Barcelona: Ediciones Península S.A. ISBN 84-8307-288-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Page 68.
  21. ^ Arambourg, Camille (1957). "Récentes découvertes de paléontologie humaine réalisées en Afrique du Nord française (L'Atlanthropus de Ternifine - L'Hominien de Casablanca)". Third Panafrican Congress on Prehistory, Livingstone 1955. Clark, J.D. et Cole, S., Eds. Pages 186-194.

Bibliography

  • Boyd, Robert (2008). How Humans Evolved. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-93271-3.
  • A. S. Barnes/H. H. Kidder, Differentes techniques de débitage à La Ferrassie. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Franç. 33, 1936, 272–288.
  • C. A Bergmann/M. B. Roberts, Flaking technology at the Acheulean site of Boxgrove, West Sussex, England. Rev. Arch. Picardie, Numero Special, 1–2, 1988, 105–113.
  • F. Bordes, Le couche Moustérienne du gisement du Moustier (Dordogne): typologie et techniques de taille. Soc. Préhist. Française 45, 1948, 113–125.
  • F. Bordes, Observations typologiques et techniques sur le Perigordien supérieur du Corbiac (Dordogne). Soc. Préhist. Française 67, 1970, 105–113.
  • F. Bordes, Le débitage levallois et ses variantes. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 77/2, 1980, 45–49.
  • P. Callow, The Olduvai bifaces: technology and raw materials. In: M. D. Leakey/D. A. Roe, Olduvai Gorge Vol. 5. (Cambridge 1994) 235–253.
  • H. L. Dibble, Reduction sequences in the manufacture of Mousterian implements in France. In: O. Soffer (Hrsg.), The Pleistocene of the Old world, regional perspectives (New York 1987).
  • P. R. Fish, Beyond tools: middle palaeolithic debitage: analysis and cultural inference. J. Anthr. Res. 1979, 374–386.
  • F. Knowles, Stone-Worker’s Progress (Oxford 1953).
  • Marek Kohn/Steven Mithen Axes, products of sexual selection?, Antiquity 73, 1999, 518–26.
  • K. Kuman, The Oldowan Industry from Sterkfontein: raw materials and core forms. In: R. Soper/G. Pwiti (Hrsg.), Aspects of African Archaeology. Papers from the 10th Congress of the Pan-African Association for Prehistory and Related Studies. Univ. of Zimbabwe Publications (Harare 1996) 139–146.
  • J. M. Merino, Tipología lítica. Editorial Munibe 1994. Suplemento, (San Sebastián 1994). ISSN 1698-3807.
  • H. Müller-Beck, Zur Morphologie altpaläolithischer Steingeräte. Ethnogr.-Archäol.-Zeitschr. 24, 1983, 401–433.
  • M. Newcomer, Some quantitative experiments in hand axe manufacture. World Arch. 3, 1971, 85–94.
  • Th. Weber, Die Steinartefakte des Homo erectus von Bilzingsleben. In: D. Mania/Th. Weber (Hrsg.), Bilzingsleben III. Veröff. Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle 39, 1986, 65–220.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Stone hand axes.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hand_axe&oldid=628276377"