The Lower Palaeolithic is the earliest stage in the archaeological record from which stone tools are known, and while such ancient tools are rare, they are much more common than the remains of the Hominins which produced them, or any other remains of their activity, thus providing a key insight into the activities of our ancient ancestors. The first bifacial handaxes appear in the African archaeological record about 1.76 million years ago, and are considered to be a significant conceptual leap from the Oldowan core-and-flake technology which preceded them, although whether these axes had an entirely novel function or were a new technological approach to tasks which were already undertaken is unclear. One of the notable manifestations of this technology was the manufacture of 'giant' handaxes, notably larger than other examples of these tools, sufficiently large that archaeologists are divided as to whether they had any practical function at all.
It has been suggested that the purpose of these giant axes may have been social rather than practical, with the production of such tools representing a significant time investment, and therefore being an indicator of patience and commitment to a project. Giant, highly symmetrical handaxes from British sites such as Furze Platt and Shrub Hill have been used to support this hypothesis. An alternative suggestion is that the Hominins involved may have found the manufacture of such giant axes an aesthetically pleasing activity in its own righty, an early sign of artistic expression emerging from the purely functional.
In a paper published in the journal Antiquity on 4 March 2024, Luke Dale of the Department of Archaeology at Durham University, Aaron Rawlinson, also of the Department of Archaeology at Durham University, and of the Department of Britain, Europe and Prehistory at the British Museum, Pete Knowles and Frederick Foulds, again of the Department of Archaeology at Durham University, Nick Ashton, also of the Department of Britain, Europe and Prehistory at the British Museum, David Bridgland of the Department of Geography at Durham University, and Mark White, once again of the Department of Archaeology at Durham University, present the results of a study of giant handaxes from across the British Lower Palaeolithic.
Dale et al. note that symmetry is often cited as a key feature of giant handaxes, but that no previous study appears to have actually looked at whether these axes are actually more symmetrical than other axes from the same period, nor whether the style or frequency of these objects varies over time.
All giant handaxes are associated with the Acheulean technology, which in Britain was present by Marine Isotope Stage 13, about 500 000 years ago, and may have appeared as early as Marine Isotope Stage 15, about 600 000 years ago, if recent dates for the Fordwich and the Bytham River terraces are correct. The global climate underwent a series of oscilations during the Middle Pleistocene (781 000-126 000 years ago), which in Britain manifested as a series of warm interglacials during which Hominins invaded and settled the landscape, interspersed with colder glacial intervals during which they disappeared. This pattern results in a series of distinct cultural intervals within the British Acheulean, providing a potential opportunity to detect discrete phases in the manufacture of giant handaxes in Britain.
Dale et al. obtained data on 4160 handaxes of all sizes, from 47 sited dating to between Marine Isotope Stage 15 and Marine Isotope Stage 9. For convenience, each (odd) Marine Isotope Stages was considered to represent a warm phase, as well as the cool phases bracketing it, thus Marine Isotope Stage 11 in fact refers to the Marine Isotope Stage 10-11-12 cool-warm-cool cycle; each cycle therefore represents about 100 000 years. The warm phases covered by Dale et al.'s study are MIS 15 (approximately 610 000 to 560 000 years ago), MIS 13 (approximately 524 000-474 000 years ago), MIS 11 (approximately 427 000 to 364 000 years ago), MIS 9 (approximately 328 000-301 000 years ago. Many of the sites in the study are well dated, but others represent chronologically mixed assemblages, such as Dunbridge in Hampshire, where the artefacts were recovered from dredged aggregates, have only been tentatively dated, such as Whitlingham in Norfolk, or are known to have been the subject of collecting biases, such as Furze Platt in Berkshire. Dale et al. recognise that these factors will have an impact on the reliability of their study, but reason that the size of their dataset should offset this. They also note that a further two giant handaxes were discovered at Frindsbury in Kent after the initial daft of their study was submitted, and that these are thought to date to MIS 9.
Handaxes were divided into six classes on the basis of their symmetry, with Class 1 representing near perfect symetry, and Class 6 indicating almost no symmetry.
Dale et al. measured the length of all the 4160 handaxes in their study, splitting them into four categories; small (less than 80 mm in length), average (80-150 mm in length), large (150-220 mm in length) and giant (more than 220 mm in length.
Forty two of the handaxes fell into the 'giant' category, of which 33 can be confidently assigned to the MIS 9 cycle, the final stage of the Acheulian in Britain. A single giant axe was dated to MIS 11, and two to MIS 13 - although one of these is- derived from a MIS 6 gravel bed, and is interpreted as having been reworked from a MIS 13 deposit. Since MIS 9 only represents about 1% of the British Pleistocene record, this concentration of giant handaxes in MIS 9 deposits is interpreted as being significant.
In the 1960s archaeologist Derek Roe developed a system of classifying handaxes upon their shape. The majority of giant handaxes in Dale et al.'s study conform to Roe's Group I (pointed, with cleavers) and Group III (plano-convex), both of which are associated with MIS 9. Notably, handaxes in an assemblage from Broom on the Devon/Dorset border, which included several giant handaxes, while still from MIS 9, did not easily fit into Roe's scheme. The stone tools here were made from chert derived from the Upper Greensand, and tended to be ovate or asymmetrical, unlike other MIS 9 assemblages.
Other than the presence of giant handaxes in the MIS 9 material, the size distribution of handaxes between different interglacials varied little, with the average size of the axes varying only by 10-20%, although the MIS 15 handaxes appear on average slightly larger than those from later assemblages, and the MIS 11 assemblage contained a higher proportion of small handaxes than other stages. However, Dale et al. note that their MIS 15 material came from only two sites, Brandon Fields in Suffolk and Fordwich in Kent, with the material used at Fordwich being elongated pipeflint, which lends itself to the making of larger bifaced tools with a minimal amount of effort. Given this, Dale et al. are reluctant to read much into this data without further MIS 15 material becoming available.
Analysis also suggests that axes from MIS 13 and MIS 9 are on average larger than those from MIS 11, and MIS 9 axes are also slightly larger, on average, than those from MIS 13. Dale et al. are uncertain whether this variation relates to cultural differences between the different populations colonising Britain in each interglacial, and make no further assessment of this data at this time.
The majority of giant handaxes come from the Thames Valley or its southern tributaries, although examples are also known from Norfolk Yare, the Axe Valley and Solent River deposits. The majority of sites where they are found are close to primary chalk-flint outcrops, where large flint nodules were available. However, some were found in flint-poor areas, such as Wolvercote and Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire, whereas older archaeological sites, such as Boxgrove in West Sussex, and Elveden in Suffolk, are located near excellent sources of large flint nodules, but yield no giant handaxes.
No giant handaxes available from Stoke Newington in London, one of the UK's best MIS 9 sites, although it is known that the site did yield such axes; as the original excavator of the site, Victorian archaeologist Worthington Smith, illustrated several giant handaxes in his book, Man, the primeval savage, but then gave these away to distinguished visitors to the site; these axes are thought to be either in private collections or lost.
Of the forty two giant handaxes in the study, thirty five (or 83%) are pointed, typically conforming to the lanceolate (lance-shaped) or ficron (having a pointed planform shape with biconcave edges) type. These shapes are considered to be part of the same typological grouping as chisel-ended cleavers, a grouping which is thought by many archaeologists to be restricted to MIS 9. Although ficrons are associated with giant axes, not all ficron handaxes are giant; known ficrons range in size from 63 mm to 307 mm.
Since the overwhelming majority of the giant axes date from MIS 9, Dale et al. examined axes from this stage for their symmetry. Handaxes from this interval were found to vary a great deal in their degree of symmetry, although there was a direct corelation between axe length and symetry, with longer axes tending to be more symmetrical than shorter ones.
Splitting the axes into groups based upon their size emphasised this trend, with axes in larger categories being more symmetrical than those in smaller size categories. Examination of earlier axes suggested that this tendency for larger axes to be more symmetrical was also present in MIS 11, but not MIS 15 or 13, although the number of axes available from the earlier periods makes this result less reliable.
However, this tendency for larger axes to be more symmetrical in MIS 11 and 9 deposits may be influenced by another trend, which is for axes in general to be much more symmetrical in MIS 13 and 11, compared to other periods, and in particular to MIS 9. Thus, the increased symmetry seen in the large MIS 9 axes is balanced by a decrease in the symmetry seen in smaller axes, with the smallest axes (less thn 100 mm in length) tending to be roughly and quickly made, with very low symmetry.
Giant handaxes are often cited as a key feature of Hominin cognitive and cultural development. Dale et al.'s study demonstrates that these items became prevalent in Britain during MIS 9, i.e. immediately prior to the Lower-Middle Palaeolithic transition, 300 000 and 250 000 years ago. This interval has already been identified as one of significant technological innovation, beginning with a non-handaxe phase, which was then followed by a period with handaxes, then a final phase in which a hierachical core-working technology, known as the proto-Levallois was introduced. The linking of giant handaxes to this stage adds another element to this increasing cultural complexity.
The presence of giant handaxes is often independent of the availability of suitable manufacturing materials, with giant handaxes known from areas of Oxfordshire where there are no sources of suitable large flints. This implies that either the raw material or the finished axes were transported for at least 25-40 km to the sites where they were found. This phenomenon has also been observed in France, with a giant handaxe found at Caune de l’Arago in Pyrénées-Orientales Department, more than 30 km from any suitable source of material. This transportation of materials is another new innovation from this phase, with most previous Lower Palaeolithic sites using stone sourced less than 5 km from the location where it was discovered. The increased effort being put into moving giant axes to locations away from the materials from which they were made lends further support to the hypothesis that these were valuable items, although another possibility is that these tools had a long working life, and were subject to regular reworking to maintain a sharp edge, which would explain the plano-convex form of many handaxes, including those at Wolvercote in Oxfordshire. Under this hypothesis, many large handaxes would have been discarded prematurely, before being extensively reduced.
Many of the giant handaxes are ficrons, a type of axe otherwise rare in Britain. Large ficrons are particularly striking objects, apparently crafted with care to maintain the length of the axe while reducing the width of the upper and central portions of the axe. This may have been a way to correct for a lack of symmetry in the original platform (the rock from which the ficron was made), or a sign of the tool having an extended lifespan, with regular resharpening. Another hypothesis is that the width reduction may have been a way to reduce the weight of the tool part of a general Acheulian trend for longer tools to be narrower. The alternative is that the ficron-shape was desired from the outset, and that the extra effort put into producing an axe of this shape is an indicator of the significance of the object to the people who made it. Whatever the truth, there does appear to be a link between the high symetry, large size, and unusual shape of these giant ficrons which appears to show a degree of artistry transcending the merely functional.
It has often been speculated that giant handaxes had no practical function, but experimentation has shown that examples far larger than anything found in Britain can be used as tools. Even the largest giant axes can be used two handed, can be used for digging, or can be used as static cutting tools across which materials could be drawn. Despite this possible functionality, all the British giant handaxes are distinctively formed and highly symmetrical, making it hard to believe that aesthetic considerations played no part in their manufacture.
The oldest known giant axe is 1.6 million years old, and came from the Olduvai FLK West site in Tanzania. This is long before anything else considered to be even possibly an expression of communal artistic standards, and therefore was presumably made by an individual for reasons that were important to them alone. A more communal approach to aesthetics begins to appear about 500 000 years ago, at which point tools also being to appear which have been shaped to make the most of features such as fossils on the rock cortex. Giant handaxes may also represent an aesthetic development, with the size and symmetry of stone tools being increased to create visually pleasing objects. This implies the people who made these tools were capable in taking pleasure in creating such objects, which would imply an increasing level of cognitive and social development.
Giant handaxes may also have had some symbolic purpose. The manufacture and then apparent discarding of objects which take a degree of forward planning and labour investment may have been a way of marking territory, or signposting important locations to other members of the community.
The ability to produce giant handaxes clearly predates MIS 9; they are known from earlier in the Lower Palaeolithic and across the Acheulean world. A 300 mm-long lanceolate giant handaxe from Caune de l’Arago is thought to date from MIS 14, and other examples from across northern France, at sites including St Acheul and Thennes in the Somme Valley, Vaudricourt in Pas-de-Calais, and Montguillain in Oise Department, have variously been dated to MIS 11 and 9, although none of these dates are considered to be particularly secure. Giant handaxes are also known from the Levant and Middle East, though these tend to be less accurately dated. A 220 mm long example from Qesem Cave in Israel is thought to be between 420 000 and 200 000 years old, while a 265 mm-long basalt handaxe was found at Wadi Dabsa in Saudi Arabia. A site at Porto Maior in north-west Spain was occupied for a long interval across MIS 8-7, by a people of apparent African affinities, who regularly produced giant handaxes, picks and cleavers. Giant handaxes have been found at 23 sites across Africa, including Olduvai in Tanzania, where the largest such axe is 330 mm long and 1.4 million years old, Isenya in Kenya, where the largest axe is 253 mm long and 700 000 years old, and Kalambo Falls in Zambia, where the largest axe is 350 mm long and 300 years old. However, the African Acheulian, with which many sites in southern Europe and the Middle East are also associated, has a greater emphasis on large cleavers, picks, and handaxes, together referred to as 'large cutting tools'.
The MIS 9 giant handaxes from Britain appear to show a different phenomenon, a discrete technological interval in which larger, more symmetrical tools suddenly appeared. In France, the MIS 9 sites in the Somme Valley are the closest available to compare, with the Cagny l’Epinette locality producing 33 handaxes, the largest of which is still less than 170 mm in length, while the Revelles site has produced 52 handaxes, none more that 190 mm long. Ferme de l’Epinette, a MIS 10 site in the Somme Valley has produced 31 handaxes, all less than 180 mm long, while the MIS 9 stage of the Soucy complex in the Paris Basin has produced 178 handaxes, the largest of which are 155 mm long, and no handaxe from the entire complex exceeds 180 mm. The Orgnac Cave site in the Ardèche Department has a sequence of archaeological layers running from MIS 10 to MIS 8, but has produced no handaxes more than 200 mm in length. The MIS 9 layers at Menez-Dregan in Brittany have produced 29 handaxes, all less than 160 mm in length, although this may be because the tools are made from sandstone and microgranite beach pebbles which would not lend themselves to making bigger tools. This lack of large rocks for use as a source of tools may also account for the generally small handaxes found at Atapuerca in Spain.
Thus the production of giant handaxes in Britain appears to be a geographically, as well as chronologically, restricted phenomenon. This fits in with a more modern understanding of the Acheulian Culture, which includes many such small-scale variations, rather than being a single long-lived and widespread monoculture, as was once perceived.
See also...
