The Hand Axe -

A Million Years of Use

What Was the Acheulean Hand Axe?

by Eileen M. O'Brien

About one and one-half million years ago, a new type of large, symmetrically shaped stone implement entered the prehistoric tool kit, signaling both an advance in craftsmanship and the advent of Homo erectus, a small-brained but otherwise fairly recognizable form of human being. The tool was the hand axe, which these ancestral humans faithfully made for well over one million years. Named for archeological finds at Saint Acheul, France examples of the Acheulean hand axe are found from the Vaal River of South Africa to the lakes, bogs, and rivers of Europe, from the shores of the Mediterranean to India and Indonesia. Such continuity over time and space speaks to us of use, success, and reuse - a design integral to some task, a task appropriate or essential to diverse environments.

Homo erectus needed tools: tools to cut, slice, and chop, to dig, pound, and grind; tools to defend against predators and competitors, to procure and process food or other materials, even tools to make tools. But which task (or tasks) the hand axe performed is still being debated.

The average hand axe looks like a giant stone almond, although some are more ovate and others more triangular. Crafted from a stone core or Rake, it can range in size from only a few inches to a foot or more, but most are six or seven inches long. Whether roughly finished or as relined as a work of art, the hand axe always has an eccentric center of gravity and a sharp edge around all or most of its perimeter. Thus in cross section lengthwise, it resembles a stretched-out teardrop.

Some have speculated that the hand axe's design was not functional but purely aesthetic or that it was a byproduct of the manufacture of the sharp Rakes used in butchering. Most anthropologists, however, assume it was a practical implement. Initially, prehistorians thought it was a hefted, multipurpose tool and weapon like the stone hatchet, or axe, of the aboriginal Americans and Australians. But there is no evidence that it was hefted until much later in time, not until after the evolution of Homo sapiens. Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ, is that the hand axe acted as a stationary tool, one edge embedded in the earth while the exposed edge cut or scraped an object passed over it. But the common and traditional interpretation is that it was a hand-held tool for butchering, cutting, scraping, digging, or as its name implies, chopping.

Experiments show that these important tasks can be accomplished with a hand axe. But Homo erectus possessed other tools suitable for these purposes - tools that precede and continue alongside the hand axe in the archeological record. Compared with these, the hand axe was costly to produce in terms of time, labor, and skill, and required larger blocks of fine-grained, faultless stone such as flint or basalt. The hand axe also presented a hazard. Since a heavy object requires effort to wield and carry, we may assume the mass of the hand axe was important to its function. Force in the form of increased momentum would be useful for chopping, for example, as compared with a task like scraping, where the user exerts all the energy in the form of pressure. But without a safe handhold, the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much damage on the user as on the material being worked.

Whatever its function, the hand axe represented to its users not only an investment of energy but also a source of raw material. They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed. Elsewhere across the landscape, hand axes are rare, although they are occasionally found in some numbers m prehistoric cave sites. This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency.

If we let the evidence speak for itself, the appropriate question is: What task would require force, call for a tool with a sharp edge around all (or most) of its perimeter but without a safe handhold, occur in or near water, and often result in the loss of a potentially reusable and valuable artifact? The possibility that occurred to me is that the hand axe was a projectile weapon. The idea, I have since discovered, has been thought of before, but not pursued. Use of the hand axe as a weapon has been suggested since at least the sixteenth century, and small hand axes have been proposed as projectiles since the nineteenth century, most enjoyably by H.G. Wells in his Tales of Time and Space (1899). More recently, M.D.W. Jeffreys, a South African anthropologist, wrote that the small- to medium-sized Vaal River hand axes would make good bird hunting weapons if thrown overhand, like a knife ("The Handbolt." Man, 1965). But the idea that hand axes were in general used as projectiles has not taken hold, probably because it is not obvious how the larger hand axes could have been thrown.

By analogy with modern forms, we understand how prehistoric stone arrowheads and spear points were propelled and used as weapons or how a stone ball ("spheroid," to archeologists) could be thrown or used in a bole (a weighted thong or cord thrown to entangle prey). But what about the hand axe? One way might be overhand, as Jeffreys suggested. Other methods of throwing a small- to medium-sized hand axe might be the side/overhand throw used in baseball and perhaps the backhand throw used in both knife and frisbee throwing. To throw a large, heavy hand axe, however, a sidearm or underhand throw might be preferable. A few years ago, I decided that a practical experiment was what was needed. From my limited knowledge of track and field, I thought that for sidearm throwing, an analogy might be made between a hand axe and the Olympic discus.

Like a hand axe, the early discus of the ancient Greeks was unhafted, edged all around, and made of stone. It also varied in size from about half a foot to more than one foot in diameter, and in weight from about two and one-quarter pounds to more than fourteen and one-half pounds. (Actually, the word discus means "a thing for throwing" or "a thing thrown"; the discus thrown by Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey, for example, is thought by some scholars to refer to a beach cobble.) Unlike a hand axe, the classic Greek discus was perfectly round. (The modern regulation discus, which weighs 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds, is made of wood and weighted with metal around the edge to accelerate its spinning motion. The longer and faster it spins, the more stable the flight pattern and the longer the flight, all else being equal.)

The hand axe I chose for the throwing experiment was the largest I could find in the Olorgesailie collection at the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi (I was in Africa at the time doing fieldwork unrelated to this topic). Because the original could not be used - and raw material for making a "real" hand axe of such size was difficult to obtain - a fiberglass replica was made. The original hand axe is a little more than a foot long, ovate shaped, and edged all around. It is made of basalt and weighs about four pounds, three ounces. J.D. Ambrosse Esa (then head of the museum's casting department) supervised the casting and the accurate weighting of the facsimile to within one and one-half ounces of the original.

The experiment took place in 1978, in the discus practice area at the University of Massachusetts, where I was then a student. Two student athletes participated: Karl Nyholm, a discus thrower, and George Peredy a javelin thrower. One day in late April, and again two weeks later, both threw the hand axe discus-style. Peredy also threw it overhand. To maximize potential accuracy in the discus throw, the thrower did not whirl.

The first to throw the hand axe discus style was Karl Nyholm. He took the unfamiliar object in his right hand, grasping it every which way before settling on the butt. He tossed it up and down for balance and "feel," then crouched and practiced his swing. Ready, he paced off from the release line. With his back to the field, he spread his legs apart, bent at the knees, and twisted his right arm far behind him. Then he began the throw: his outstretched left hand grasping at air, weight shifting from right foot to left, he rotated to face the field. The burdened right hand swung wide and low and then raced upward With a great exhalation of breath, he hurled himself out straight and let go. Silently, gracefully spinning, the hand a soared.

Like a discus, the hand axe spun horizon - tally as it rose, but changed its orientation in midair. On reaching its maximum altitude, it rolled onto its edge and descended in a perpendicular position, its spinning motion appearing to decline. Then, with thud, it landed point first, slicing deeply into the thawing earth. In both throwing; bouts, regardless of thrower, the hand a repeated this flight pattern when thrown discus-style. It landed on edge forty-two, out of forty-five throws, shiny one of which were point first. The average throw was about one-third the length of a foot- ball field (almost 102 feet), and usually accurate to within two yards right or left of the line of trajectory.

The propensity of the hand axe to pivot onto its edge in mid-flight was unexpected and curious. But, as suggested to me by! several track coaches, it may be related to the same factors that can produce the "peel -off" pattern in a thrown discus some function of the manner of release and the thrower's expertise. A full explanation of the physical principles involved must await an interpretation by someone with the relevant expertise What is important is that it does happen By so doing, it makes on- edge impact of a thrown hand axe predictable. The further tendency of the hand axe to land point first does not appear accidental and adds to the implement's potential to inflict damage. If the hand axe can also be thrown so that it behaves exactly like the discus in both ascent and descent (more recent demonstrations support this possibility), then by simply changing the angle and manner of release it should be possible to strike a target with either a horizontally or vertically directed edge.

Modern discus throwing is not known for its accuracy. But in terms of how far a hand axe might ideally be thrown, it is worth noting that the 1980 Olympic record in discus was 218.8 feet. Since the experimental hand axe weighs only two and a half ounces less than the modern Olympic discus, this suggests that as the thrower's skill and/or strength increase, the potential flight distance of the hand axe increases.

When grasped and thrown overhand, like a knife, the experimental hand axe performed like one, rotating symmetrically on edge in both ascent and descent. The average throw was just short of discus-style, but more accurate, about half a yard right or left of the line of trajectory. It always landed on edge, but less often point first. Unfortunately,, these results are the product of only six throws; owing to its weight and the ovate, broad point, the experimental hand axe was difficult to grasp and throw overhand. George Peredy, who was the thrower, also appeared to tire more quickly using this method and probably could not have used it al all if he had not had large hands, in proportion to his six- foot six-inch frame. This overhand style would probably be more suitable for lighter, more triangular hand axes. In contrast, weight and shape were of no real concern when throwing the hand axe discus-style. Even a significant increase in weight might not have impeded the throwing motion, although it would have affected the distance of the throw.

Further testing is needed (and is currently under way), but these first trials showed that a hand axe could perform appropriately as a projectile. The hand axe demonstrated a propensity to land on edge when thrown overhand or discus-style, a tendency to land point first, and a potential for distant and accurate impact. Its overall shape minimizes the effects of resistance while in flight, as well as at impact. This is not true of an unshaped stone or a spheroid, for example. And despite its sharp edge, the hand axe could be launched without a safe handhold. The only apparent limitations to the hand axe's use as a projectile weapon are the strength, coordination, and skill of the thrower.

Homo erectus was bipedal, probably dexterous enough to manipulate a hand axe in either of the tested throwing styles, and very much stronger than most modern humans. With their technique perfected over years of practice and use, our ancestors probably surpassed the accuracy shown in the experimental throws. I suspect the hand axe simply reflects a refinement in missile design, one that allowed for successful long-distance offense and defense against larger animals. This is consistent with evidence that big-game hunting appears for the first time in the archeological record along with Homo erectus.

Perfected through trial and error, the hand axe would not necessarily have replaced preexisting projectile or handheld weapons, because weapons and strategies probably varied with the predator being deterred or the game being hunted. Hand axes would have been especially effective in a collective strategy, such as a group of hunters bombarding a herd. To overcome any difficulty in transporting hand axes, Homo erectus could have used carrying slings made from hide, stockpiled hand axes near hunting areas, or cached them (in caves, for example) prior to seasonal migrations.

Hunting near water, where game is relatively predictable and often concentrated, offers a simple explanation of why hand axes are recovered there in abundance -as well as the phenomenon of hand axes embedded on edge in situ. Hand axes that missed their mark, landing in water or dense vegetation on the banks of a river, might have been difficult or impossible to retrieve. Over time, with continued exploitation of an area, projectiles would accumulate like golf balls in a water trap. Elsewhere across the landscape, retrieval is more likely and the hand axe should be rare. This distribution pattern, as noted by English archeologist L.H. Keeley, resembles that of the Indian projectile points across the American Southwest. (Keeley, however, does not believe that the hand axe was a projectile.)

Homo erectus, like later Homo sapiens, was physically defenseless compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. Relatively slow, without canines, claws, tusks, or other natural means of defense, these early humans were easy prey when out of a tree. With handheld weapons they could defend themselves, once attacked. With projectile weapons they could wound, maim, or kill without making physical contact, avoiding assault or retaliation. Modern humans are notoriously expert at killing from a distance. The hand axe may be proof that this behavioral strategy was refined long ago, at a time when truly "giants strode the earth" - when by dint of size the megamammals of the Pleistocene asserted their dominance, when migrating game might pass in a continuous parade for days without a break in their ranks, and humankind struggled to survive, both consumer and consumed. At the other end of time, at the dawn of history, is it possible that the ancient Greeks preserved as a sport a tradition handed down from that distant yesterday?

Eileen M. O'Brien is a research associate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Georgia. This article was first published in Natural History, July 1984.