Editing Hand axe (section)

==Bordes hand axe typology==
{{Quote|Hand axes are so varied that they do not actually have a single common characteristic… [...] Despite the numerous attempts to classify hand axes, some of which date to the beginning of the [20th] century... their study does not comply completely satisfactorily to any typological list|Gabriel Camps<ref>{{cite book|last=Camps|first= Gabriel|chapter=Les Bifaces|title=Manuel de recherche préhistorique|language=fr|trans-title=Manual of prehistory research|year=1981|publisher=Doin Éditeurs|location=Paris|isbn=978-2-7040-0318-1|page=59}}</ref>}}
The following guide is strongly influenced by the possibly outdated and basically morphological "Bordes method" classification system. This classification is particularly applicable to ''classic hand axes'',{{sfn|Bordes|1961|pp=57–66}}{{efn|name=Tixier|1=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 Bordes' colleague Jacques Tixier.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tixier|first= Jacques|title=Le hachereau dans l'Acheuléen nord-africain. Notes typologiques|language=fr|trans-title=The cleaver in the North African Achoulean: Typological notes|year=1956|journal=Congrès Préhistorique de la France|volume=XV<sup>e</sup> Session|pages=914–923|id=Poitiers-Angoulême}}</ref>}} those that can be defined and catalogued by measuring dimensions and mathematical ratios, while disregarding nearly all subjective criteria. "Distinguishing between different types of hand axes is not always easy. There is often no room for doubts, however, there are a number of cases where the difficulty is real."{{sfn|Bordes|1961|p=49}} In the majority of cases, this system agrees with previously established categories (although slightly redefining them). Balout made a similar attempt at categorization.<ref name=balout/>
{| class=wikitable
!Group
!Image
!Type
|-
| {{vertical header|va=top|Triangular}}
|[[File:Bifaz triangular.jpg|center|220px]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Triangular}}'''</div>
The triangular bifaces were initially defined by [[Henri Breuil]] as flat based, globular, covered with cortex, with two straight edges that converge at an acute apical zone.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Breuil|first1= H. |last2=Koslowski |first2=L.|title=Études de stratigraphie paléolithique dans le nord de la France, la Belgique et l'Angleterre |language=fr |trans-title=Studies of Palaeolithic stratigraphy in northern France, Belgium and England |year=1934|journal=L'Anthropologie|volume=42|pages=27–47|issn=0003-5521}}</ref>

Bordes later redefined the definition, making it more narrow.{{sfn|Bordes|1961|pp= 58–59}} For Bordes a triangular biface is a piece of developed, working and balanced morphology; they are flat pieces with three rectilinear or slightly convex edges, they must be flat (m/e > 2.35) and with a short, straight base (base rounding index L/a < 2.5).

Specialists distinguish small variations within these strict limits such as ''elongated triangular'' (L/m < 1.6), or pieces with slightly concave edges. Bordes named the latter ''shark's teeth'' for their similarity to the fossilized teeth of ''[[Carcharodon megalodon]]'' that often appear near to the archaeological sites where these tools were found. The ''sub triangular bifaces'', have a general form similar to a triangle but are more irregular and less symmetrical.

Triangular bifaces are scarce in the Lower Palaeolithic (except in the late Acheulean in some French regions) and although they are more common during the Middle Palaeolithic (especially during the Mousterian), they virtually disappear without trace.
|-
|rowspan="4" {{vertical header|va=top|Almond-shaped}}
|[[File:Bifaz amigdaloide.jpg|center|220px]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Amygdaloidal}}'''</div>
They are the most common biface in this group, defined by their almond shape, symmetrical tendency and metric indices common to this category. Apart from their shape, which gives them their name ([[Latin]] for [[almond]]), they are bifaces of regular length (1.3 < L/m < 1.6), somewhat thick (m/e < 2.35) and with an average base roundness index for this category (2.75 < L/a < 3.75). The base may be unworked or worked. They may have a sharp-pointed or oval apical zone. In some cases it may be slightly rounded (and narrow).

Amygdaloidal bifaces are nearly identical to cordiform bifaces, except that the former are thick and the latter are flat. Amygdaloidal bifaces usually have a coarse finish and high-degree of cortex coverage. This is not necessarily an indication of development or chronology. 
|-
|[[File:Bifaz cordiforme.jpg|220px|center]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Cordiform}}'''</div>
A cordiform biface is identical to the amygdaloidal when seen from the front, as it shares the same index values (elongation index: 1.3 < L/m < 1.6; and base roundness index: 2.75 < L/a < 3.75). When seen from the side it appears to be a flat biface (m/e > 2.35). Occasionally, although this is not defining, they are worked with greater skill, better finished, with less cortex and greater balance. They may also have more acute, rectilinear edges increasing efficiency.

Their name, which comes from the Latin ''[[wiktionary:cor#Latin|cor]]'' ([[heart]]), was suggested by [[Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes|de Perthes]] in 1857. It became generally used when adopted by Breuil, Commont and Goury in the 1920s.

Bordes defined them mathematically 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 Acheulean and the Mousterian.
|-----
|[[File:Bifaz lanceolado.jpg|center|220px]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Lanceate}}'''</div>
Lanceate bifaces are the most aesthetically pleasing and became the typical image of developed Acheulean bifaces. Their name is due to their similar shape to the blade of a [[lance]]. It was coined by de Perthes (''lance axe'').

Bordes defined a lanceate biface as elongated (L/m > 1.6) with rectilinear or slightly convex edges, acute apex and rounded base (2.75 < L/a < 3.75). They are often globular to the extent that it is not a flat surface (m/e < 2.35), at least in its basal zone.

They are usually balanced and well finished, with straightened ground edges. They are highly characteristic of the latter stages of the Acheulean – or the Micoquian, as it is known – and of the Mousterian in the Acheulean Tradition (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.<ref>''Ficron'' is a word used by farmers in the [[Somme (department)|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.{{harvnb|Bordes|1961|loc=58 nota 1}}</ref>
|-----
|[[File:Biface Micoquien MHNT PRE .2009.0.193.1 (3).jpg|150px|center]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Micoquien}}'''</div>
The Micoquian biface receives its name from the French cave of '''La Micoque''' in the community of [[Arrondissement of Sarlat-la-Canéda|Les Eyzies-de-Tayac]] (in the [[Dordogne]]), which also gave its name to a period at the end of the Acheulean, the [[Micoquien]]. This period is characterized by the technological development. It is thought that the Micoquien was not a separate culture from the Acheulean, but one of its final phases, and that Micoquian bifaces may be one of the few biface types that can be used as a chronological marker, a so-called index artifact. The biface is characteristic of the end of the Acheulean and was developed during the Riss-Würm interglacial.

Micoquien bifaces are 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 acute point.

Lanceate and Micoquian bifaces are usually associated. It is possible that reiterated sharpening of a lanceate biface gave rise to a Micoquian biface. They are common across the Old World.<ref>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. {{harvnb|Brézillon|1985|p=156}}</ref>
|-
|rowspan="3" {{vertical header|va=top|Oval}}
|[[File:Bifaz ovoide-Valladolid.jpg|center|220px]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Discoid}}'''</div>
[[Disk (mathematics)|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.

This type of biface commonly arises from the continuous resharpening of the active region of a longer biface, that over time becomes shorter. They can also be broken specimens that were recycled and reworked.<ref>{{cite thesis|last=Benito Álvarez|first=José Manuel|title=Aportaciones al conocimiento del Achelense en la Meseta Norte|language=es|year=2002|publisher=University of Salamanca |type=doctoral thesis |page=558}}</ref>

Discoid bifaces cannot be used as indexes, although particularly finely worked examples appear among the [[Solutrean]] culture in [[Périgord]].<ref name=bordes/>{{rp|49–55}} 
|-
|[[File:Bifaz ovoide.jpg|center|220px]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Ovoid}}'''</div>
Ovoid bifaces are roughly [[oval]] (a kind of curve whose description is slightly ambiguous, but which is more or less egg-shaped). De Perthes published a definition in 1857 that is little changed.

Bordes stated that ovoid bifaces are similar to discoids but more elongated (1.3 < L/m < 1.6) and logically have a base rounding index related to the oval bifaces (greater than 3.75). Both the base and the terminal zone are rounded (if the base is short they are almost symmetrical), although the greatest width is below the longitudinal midway point.

Ovoid bifaces apparently appeared in the middle of the Acheulean, although they are not index artifacts and along with the amygdaloids are the most common type of biface among the Acheulean cultures.
|-
|[[File:Bifaz eliptico.jpg|center|220px]]
|<div style="text-align:center">'''{{vanchor|Elliptical}}'''</div>
[[Ellipse|Elliptical]] bifaces are also known as ''[[Limanda|Limandes]]'' (from the French word {{langx|fr|limande|link=no|label=none}}, the name of a type of [[Flatfish|flounder]]). They have three axes of symmetry, bilateral, bifacial and horizontal. If the base is short they are virtually identical at the terminal end, complicating identifying top from bottom.

In practice their dimensional ratios are equal to the ovoid tools, except that the elliptical bifaces are usually more elongated (L/m > 1.6) and their maximum width (m) is nearer to their mid length.

Elliptical bifaces are found throughout the Acheulean and into the Mousterian. The finishing became more careful and balanced over time. Bordes usually differentiated flat elliptical bifaces (m/e > 2.35, ''true Limandes'') from thick elliptical bifaces (m/e < 2.35, ''Protolimandes'').
|}

===Non-classic specimens===
Many specimens defeat objective classification. Bordes created a group he called "non-classic bifaces" to which mathematical indexes do not apply.{{sfn|Bordes|1961|pp=67–69}}

{{unordered list
|Nucleiform bifaces—It is difficult to distinguish a true biface from 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 Acheulean and the Mousterian.
[[File:Bifaz nucleiforme (Torralba).png|thumb|center|upright=1.5|Nucleiform biface from the Acheulean site at [[Torralba and Ambrona (archaeological site)|Torralba]], in Soria (Spain).]]

|Cleaver bifaces—These bifaces have an apex that is neither pointed nor rounded. They possess a relatively wide terminal edge that is transverse to the morphological axis. This edge is usually more or less sub-rectilinear, slightly concave or convex. They are sometimes included within the classic types as they have a balanced, well-finished form. Cleaver-bifaces were defined by Chavaillón in 1958 as "biface with terminal bevel" ({{lang|fr|biface à biseau terminal}}<ref name=alimen/>), while Bordes simply called them "cleavers" ({{lang|fr|hachereaux}}).{{sfn|Bordes|1961|pp=57–66}}{{efn|name=Tixier}} The current term was proposed in French by Guichard in 1966 ({{lang|fr|biface-hachereau}}). The term "biface-cleaver" was proposed in Spanish in 1982 ({{lang|es|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. Technically they are bifaces, but morphologically they are similar to cleavers,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Benito del Rey |first1= Luis |title=Comentarios sobre hendidores en España, útiles de Paleolítico Inferior y Medio |language=es |year=1982 |journal=Galaecia |volume=7/8 |publisher=Department of Prehistory and Archeology, Faculty of Geografía e Historia, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela |pages=15–30 |ref=none}}</ref> although their personality is completely distinct:

{{Quote|Some authors count them as cleavers {{harvnb|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{{sfn|Alimen|Zuate y Zuber|1978|p=121}}}}

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 [[Communes of France|municipality]] of [[Arrondissement of Abbeville|Abbeville]], where they were first found in a [[marl]] [[quarry]] in the valley of the [[River Somme]]. They were initially associated with Abbevillean culture, for which they are an index fossil (although paradoxically these hand axes are particularly scarce at the Abbeville site). The Abbevillean is an initial archaic phase of the Archulean, even if it does not always appear in the stratigraphic register. Archaic hand axes such as those from Abbeville can be found throughout the Lower Palaeolithic, without this suggesting any chronological or cultural reference, supporting the term ''Abbevillean style biface''.{{sfn|Benito del Rey|1982|pp=305–323}} These hand axes were worked using only a hard hammer, without retouching, leaving them sinuous. They are asymmetrical, varied and irregular, with their shape generally determined by the stone's own shape. Their base is covered by cortex along with large areas of the sides. They tend to be relatively thick.

[[File:Bifaz de estilo Abbevillense.png|thumb|upright=1.13|Abbevillean style biface from the Acheulean archaeological site of San Isidro, in Madrid (Spain)]]
[[File:Bifaz parcial (Madrid).png|thumb|upright=.60|Partial biface from the Acheulean strata of the Manzanares valley in Madrid (Spain)]]

|'''Partial bifaces''': These are without knapping affecting more than a small part of the core. They were created with only a few blows, although this depends on the correct core choice. They are often barely recognizable as chopping tools, but their general aspect and finishing qualifies them as bifaces. The extreme age of the industry to which they belong and the economy of effort serve to qualify them:
{{Quote|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 and Benito Álvarez<ref>{{cite book|last1=Benito del Rey|first1= Luis |last2=Benito Álvarez |first2=José Manuel|chapter=El análisis tipológico: los bifaces|trans-chapter=Typological analysis: bifaces|title=Métodos y materias instrumentales en Prehistoria y Arqueología (la Edad de la Piedra Tallada más antigua) |trans-title=Methods and instrumental materials in prehistory and archaeology (the earliest age of carved stone) |volume=II: Tecnología y tipología|language=es|year=1998|chapter-url={{google books|plainurl=y|id=cxEPnQEACAAJM|page=175}}|page=175|publisher=Gráficas Cervantes|location=Salamanca|isbn=978-84-95195-05-0}}</ref>}}
}}

===Tools sometimes categorized as bifaces===
Hand axes constitute an important group artefacts from the Acheulean. They are particularly important in open air archaeological sites (Keelley suggested that they are less common in cave sites).<ref name=keeley1/> Hand axes, chopping tools and trihedral picks are considered ''core'' utensils, which were commonly manufactured out of stones, blocks or rock nodules. However this grouping is problematic as these tools were often also fabricated 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 hand axes and cleavers. However, some scrapers are as big as hand axes.

*The most elaborated [[chopping tool]]s and partial hand axes are linked and it is often difficult to distinguish between them. The concept of chopping tools is based on their lack of formal standardization (which is typical of hand axes) and includes the possibility that the pieces are shallow cores, which is unthinkable for the bifaces (except the nucleiforms).
*While hand axes and cleavers occasionally served for similar tasks, their design is fundamentally different.
*[[Trihedral Neolithic|Trihedral picks]] are no longer considered a specialized type of hand axe.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Leroy-Prost |first1=Christiane|last2=Dauvois|first2=Michel |last3=Leroy |first3=Jean-Pierre|title=Projet pour un F.T.A. du groupe des trièdres de l'Acheuléen nord-africain |language=fr |year=1981|journal=Préhistoire Africaine|publisher=Melanges offerts au doyen Linel Balout|editor1-first=Colette |editor1-last=Roubet|editor2-first=Henri-Jean |editor2-last=Hugot|editor3-first=Georges |editor3-last=Souville|id=Editions ADPF |location=Paris}}</ref>

Another group of tools commonly associated with hand axes is the ''biface leafpoint tools'' from the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Old World. The difference between the two types is based on the latter's fine, light finishing with a soft hammer and in a morphology that suggests a specific function, possibly as the point of a projectile or a knife.{{sfn|Bordes|1961|p=41}} Representatives of these tools include well known examples from the specialized literature:{{Quote|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{{sfn|Bordes|1961|p=41}}}}
*The biface leafpoint tools of central Europe are called {{lang|de|Blattspitzen}} ({{literal translation|leaf points}}). They are [[projectile point]]s belonging to the Middle Palaeolithic with a leaf-shaped form. They are often dual pointed and flat, making them similar to [[Solutrean]] [[Bay laurel|laurel]] leaf blades. It is possible to distinguish the two only from their archaeological context. {{lang|de|Blattspitzen}} survived in some Upper Palaeolithic cultures. The pieces from the eastern European [[Upper Palaeolithic|Szeletien]] culture (both {{lang|de|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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sonnevile-Bordes|first= Denise|title=L'áge de la pierre|language=fr|year=1961|publisher=Éditeur P.U.F., collection Qu sais-je?|location=Paris|page=106}}</ref>[[Image:Blattspitzen.png|thumb|Central European blattspitzen]][[Image:Ateriense Punta foliácea.png|thumb|upright=.35|[[Aterian]] leafpoint piece]][[Image:Pieza foliacea bifacial-1.png|thumb|upright=1.13|[[Stillbay]] leafpoint piece]][[Image:Pieza foliacea bifacial-2.png|thumb|upright=1|Leafpoint piece, S'baikia, Algeria]]
*Hand axes found in Africa come from both the [[Aterian]] culture of North Africa and the [[Stillbay]] culture from East Africa.<ref>{{cite book|last=Leroi-Gourhan|first= André|chapter=El Paleolítico Medio|title=La Prehistoria|language=es|year=1980|publisher=Labour |location=Barcelona|isbn=978-84-335-9309-2}}</ref> 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 ''[[Stone Age#The Middle Stone Age (MSA)|Middle Stone Age]]''. In both cases a variety of objects are found, triangular, oval and other leaf-point. Hand axes and unifaces also came from other cultures.