Editing Hand axe (section)

==Forms==
{{Quote|With its flattened-teardrop symmetry, the Achulean handaxe has long invited cognitive explanations. It is the earliest hominid tool that seems "designed" in some modern sense. Yet, for most of the "Swiss Army knife" multipurpose suite of proposed uses (defleshing, scraping, pounding roots, and flake source), an easy-to-make shape would suffice – and indeed the simpler tools continued to be made. None of these uses adequately addresses the "design aspects". Why is the handaxe mostly symmetric, why mostly flattened, why the seldom-sharp point, why sharpened all around (when that interferes with gripping the tool for pounding uses)? Neither does a suite of uses suggest why this form could remain the same from southern Africa to northern Europe to eastern Asia – and resist cultural drift for so long. The handaxe technique and its rationale were surely lost many times, just as Tasmanians lost fishing and fire-starting practices. So how did Homo erectus keep rediscovering the enigmatic handaxe shape, over and over for nearly 1.5 million years?|William H Calvin<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Calvin |first1=William H. |title=Rediscovery and the cognitive aspects of toolmaking: Lessons from the handaxe |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |date=June 2002 |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=403–404 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X02230071 }}</ref>}}

[[File:Acheuleanhandaxes.jpg|right|thumb|upright|[[Acheulean]] hand axes from [[Kent]]. The types shown are (clockwise from top) chordate, ficron and ovate.]]
The most characteristic and common shape is a pointed area at one end, cutting edges along its side and a rounded base (this includes hand axes with a lanceolate and amygdaloidal shape as well as others from the family). The axes are almost always symmetrical despite studies showing that hand axe symmetry does not help in tasks such as skinning animals.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Machin |first1=A. J. |last2=Hosfield |first2=R. T. |last3=Mithen |first3=S. J. |title=Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science |date=June 2007 |volume=34 |issue=6 |pages=883–893 |doi=10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.008 |bibcode=2007JArSc..34..883M }}</ref> While there is a "typical" shape to most hand axes,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Iovita |first1=Radu |last2=McPherron |first2=Shannon P. |title=The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |date=July 2011 |volume=61 |issue=1 |pages=61–74 |doi=10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.007 |pmid=21496877 |bibcode=2011JHumE..61...61I }}</ref> there are some displaying a variety of shapes, including circular, triangular and elliptical—calling in to question the contention that they had a constant and only symbolic significance. They are typically between {{cvt|8|and|15|cm|0}} long, although they can be bigger or smaller.

[[File:Bifaz en mano.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Typical Acheulean hand axe]]
They were typically made from a rounded [[pebble|stone]], a [[boulder|block]] or [[lithic flake]], using a [[hammerstone|hammer]] to remove flakes from both sides of the item. This hammer can be made of hard stone, or of wood or [[antler]]. The latter two, softer hammers can produce more delicate results. However, a hand axe's technological aspect can reflect more differences. For example, [[uniface]] tools have only been worked on one side and partial bifaces retain a high proportion of the natural cortex of the [[tool stone]], often making them easy to confuse with [[chopping tool]]s. Further, simple bifaces may have been created from a suitable tool stone, but they rarely show evidence of [[Retouch (lithics)|retouching]]. Later hand axes were improved by the use of the [[Levallois technique]] to make the more sophisticated and lighter Levallois core.

In summary, hand axes are recognized by many typological schools under different archaeological paradigms and are quite recognisable (at least the most typical examples). However, they have not been definitively categorized. Stated more formally, the idealised [[Scientific modelling|model]] combines a series of well-defined properties, but no set of these properties are necessary or sufficient to identify a hand axe.
{{Quote|The study of hand axes is made complicated because its shape is the result of a complicated chain of technical actions that are only occasionally revealed in their later stages. If this complexity of intentions during the manufacture of a hand axe is added to its variety of forms [...] we realise that the hand axe is one of the most problematical and complex objects in Prehistory|Benito del Rey.{{sfn|Benito del Rey|1982|pp=314, 315}}}}