Achelense

Archaeological culture associated with Homo erectus

Achelense

Mapa de la distribución de hallazgos de cuchillas del Pleistoceno medio (achelense)
Rango geográfico	África, Europa y Asia
Período	Paleolítico inferior
fechas	1,76–0,13 millones de años
Tipo de sitio	Saint-Acheul (Amiens)
Precedido por	Oldowan
Seguido por	Musteriano , Clactoniano , Micoquien

Una bifaz cordiforme como la que se encuentra comúnmente en el achelense (réplica).

Hachas de mano achelenses de Kent . Los tipos que se muestran son (en el sentido de las agujas del reloj desde arriba) cordiforme, ficrón y ovado. ^{[ cita requerida ]}

La representación de una cabaña de Terra Amata en Niza, Francia, según lo postulado por Henry de Lumley, data de hace 400 mil años.

Achelense ( / ə ʃ U l i ə n / ; también Acheulian y Modo II ), del francés Acheuléen después del sitio de tipo de Saint-Acheul , es una industria arqueológica de herramienta de piedra fabricación caracterizado por distintivo ovalada y con forma de pera " hachas de mano "asociadas con Homo erectus y especies derivadas como Homo heidelbergensis .

Las herramientas achelenses se produjeron durante el Paleolítico Inferior en África y gran parte de Asia Occidental, Asia Meridional, Asia Oriental y Europa, y se encuentran típicamente con restos de Homo erectus . Se cree que las tecnologías Acheulean desarrollaron por primera vez hace unos 1,76 millones de años, derivan de la más primitiva Oldowan tecnología asociada a Homo habilis . ^[1] El Achelense incluye al menos la primera parte del Paleolítico Medio . Su final no está bien definido, dependiendo de si se incluye Sangoan (también conocido como "Epi-Acheulean"), se puede considerar que dure hasta hace 130.000 años. En Europa y Asia occidental, los primeros neandertalesadoptó la tecnología achelense, haciendo la transición a musteriana hace unos 160.000 años.

Historia de la investigación

El sitio tipo para el achelense es Saint-Acheul , un suburbio de Amiens , la capital del departamento de Somme en Picardía , donde se encontraron artefactos en 1859. ^[2]

A John Frere se le atribuye generalmente el mérito de haber sido el primero en sugerir una fecha muy antigua para las hachas de mano achelenses. En 1797, envió dos ejemplos a la Royal Academy de Londres desde Hoxne en Suffolk . Los había encontrado en depósitos de lagos prehistóricos junto con los huesos de animales extintos y concluyó que fueron hechos por personas "que no tenían el uso de metales" y que pertenecían a un "período muy antiguo de hecho, incluso más allá del mundo actual". . ^[3] Sin embargo, sus ideas fueron ignoradas por sus contemporáneos, quienes suscribieron una visión predarwiniana de la evolución humana . ^{[ cita requerida ]}

Más tarde, Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes , trabajando entre 1836 y 1846, recopiló más ejemplos de hachas de mano y huesos de animales fosilizados de las terrazas de grava del río Somme cerca de Abbeville en el norte de Francia. Una vez más, sus colegas rechazaron sus teorías que atribuían una gran antigüedad a los hallazgos, hasta que uno de los principales oponentes de De Perthe, el Dr. Marcel Jérôme Rigollot , comenzó a encontrar más herramientas cerca de Saint Acheul. Tras las visitas a Abbeville y Saint Acheul del geólogo Joseph Prestwich , finalmente se aceptó la edad de las herramientas. ^{[ cita requerida ]}

En 1872, Louis Laurent Gabriel de Mortillet describió las características herramientas de hacha de mano como pertenecientes a L'Epoque de St Acheul . La industria pasó a llamarse Acheulean en 1925. ^{[ cita requerida ]}

Salir con el achelense

La provisión de fechas calendáricas y secuencias cronológicas ordenadas en el estudio de la fabricación de herramientas de piedra temprana a menudo se logra a través de una o más técnicas geológicas, como la datación radiométrica , a menudo la datación con potasio-argón y la magnetoestratigrafía . De la Formación Konso de Etiopía, las hachas de mano achelenses datan de hace aproximadamente 1,5 millones de años utilizando la datación radiométrica de depósitos que contienen cenizas volcánicas. ^[4] También se ha encontrado que las herramientas achelenses en el sur de Asia datan de hace 1,5 millones de años. ^[5] Sin embargo, los primeros ejemplos aceptados de los achelenses actualmente conocidos provienen de la región de Turkana occidental deKenia y fueron descritos por primera vez por un equipo de arqueología dirigido por Francia. ^[6] Estas herramientas achelenses en particular fueron fechadas recientemente a través del método de magnetoestratigrafía hace aproximadamente 1,76 millones de años, lo que las convierte en las más antiguas no solo de África sino del mundo. ^[7] El primer usuario de las herramientas achelenses puede haber sido Homo ergaster , que apareció por primera vez hace unos 1,8 millones de años (no todos los investigadores utilizan este nombre formal y prefieren llamar a estos usuarios Homo erectus temprano ^[1] ). Sin embargo, es imposible saber con certeza si el Homo ergaster fue el único fabricante de las primeras herramientas achelenses, ya que otras especies de homínidos, como el Homo habilis, también vivía en África Oriental en este momento ^[8]

A partir de la datación geológica de los depósitos sedimentarios, parece que el achelense se originó en África y se extendió a las áreas de Asia, Oriente Medio y Europa en algún momento entre hace 1,5 millones de años y hace unos 800 mil años. ^{[9] [10]} En regiones individuales, esta datación puede refinarse considerablemente; en Europa, por ejemplo, se pensaba que los métodos achelenses no llegaron al continente hasta hace unos 500.000 años. Sin embargo, una investigación más reciente demostró que las hachas de mano en España se fabricaron hace más de 900.000 años. ^[10]

Las técnicas de datación relativa (basadas en la presunción de que la tecnología progresa con el tiempo) sugieren que las herramientas achelenses siguieron a los métodos de fabricación de herramientas más rudimentarios, pero existe una superposición cronológica considerable en las primeras industrias prehistóricas de trabajo de piedra, con evidencia en algunas regiones de que los achelenses Los grupos que usaban herramientas eran contemporáneos con otras industrias menos sofisticadas como la Clactonian ^[11] y luego con las más sofisticadas de Musterian., también. Por lo tanto, es importante no ver el achelense como un período claramente definido o que sucedió como parte de una secuencia clara, sino como una técnica de fabricación de herramientas que floreció especialmente bien en la prehistoria temprana. La enorme extensión geográfica de las técnicas achelenses también hace que el nombre sea difícil de manejar, ya que representa numerosas variaciones regionales sobre un tema similar. El término achelense no representa una cultura común en el sentido moderno, sino que es un método básico para fabricar herramientas de piedra que se compartió en gran parte del Viejo Mundo . ^{[ cita requerida ]}

Los Acheulean muy tempranas conjuntos a menudo contienen numerosas Oldowan al estilo de escamas y formas básicas y es casi seguro que el Achelense desarrollado a partir de esta industria más. Estas industrias se conocen como Oldowan Desarrollado y casi con certeza son de transición entre Oldowan y Acheulean. ^{[ cita requerida ]}

Los tiempos finales del Achelense subdivididos regionalmente muestran que persistió mucho después de la difusión de las tecnologías del Paleolítico Medio en múltiples regiones continentales y terminó con más de 100.000 años de diferencia: en África y el Cercano Oriente: 175-166 kya, en Europa: 141-130 kya y en Asia: 57–53 kya. ^{[12] [13]}

Herramientas de piedra achelense

Etapas

Un hacha de mano achelense, Haute-Garonne Francia - MHNT

En las cuatro divisiones del trabajo de piedra prehistórico, ^{[14] los} artefactos achelenses se clasifican como Modo 2, lo que significa que son más avanzados que las herramientas del Modo 1 (generalmente anteriores) de las industrias clactoniana o oldowan / abbeviliana , pero carecen de la sofisticación de las ( generalmente más tarde) Tecnología del Paleolítico Medio Modo 3, ejemplificada por la industria musulmana . ^{[ cita requerida ]}

Las industrias del Modo 1 crearon herramientas de escamas ásperas golpeando una piedra adecuada con un martillo . La escama resultante que se rompió tendría un borde afilado natural para cortar y luego podría afilarse aún más golpeando otra escama más pequeña del borde si es necesario (conocido como "retoque"). Es posible que estos primeros fabricantes de herramientas también hayan trabajado la piedra de la que tomaron las escamas (conocida como núcleo ) para crear núcleos de helicópteros, aunque existe cierto debate sobre si estos elementos eran herramientas o simplemente núcleos desechados. ^[15]

Los fabricantes de herramientas Acheulean Mode 2 también utilizaron el método de la herramienta de escamas Mode 1, pero lo complementaron con el uso de hueso, asta o madera para dar forma a las herramientas de piedra. Este tipo de martillo, en comparación con la piedra, proporciona más control sobre la forma de la herramienta terminada. A diferencia de las industrias anteriores del Modo 1, era el núcleo lo que se preciaba sobre los copos que provenían de él. Otro avance fue que las herramientas Mode 2 se trabajaron simétricamente y en ambos lados lo que indica un mayor cuidado en la producción de la herramienta final. ^{[ cita requerida ]}

La tecnología del Modo 3 surgió hacia el final del dominio achelense e involucró la técnica de Levallois , la más famosa explotada por la industria musulmana . Las formas de herramientas de transición entre los dos se denominan Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, o tipos MTA. Las largas hojas de las industrias del Paleolítico Superior Modo 4 aparecieron mucho después de que se abandonó el Achelense. ^{[ cita requerida ]}

Como el período de uso de herramientas achelense es tan vasto, se han hecho esfuerzos para clasificar varias etapas de la misma, como la división de John Wymer en achelense temprano, achelense medio, achelense medio tardío y achelense tardío ^[16] para material de Gran Bretaña. Estos esquemas son normalmente regionales y sus fechas e interpretaciones varían. ^[17]

En África, hay una clara diferencia en las herramientas fabricadas antes y después de hace 600.000 años, siendo el grupo más viejo más grueso y menos simétrico y el más joven recortado más extensamente. ^[18]

Fabricación

La principal innovación asociada con las hachas de mano achelenses es que la piedra se trabajó simétricamente y en ambos lados. Por esta última razón, las hachas de mano son, junto con las cuchillas , herramientas trabajadas bifacialmente que podrían fabricarse a partir de las propias hojuelas grandes o de núcleos preparados. ^[19]

Tool types found in Acheulean assemblages include pointed, cordate, ovate, ficron, and bout-coupé hand-axes (referring to the shapes of the final tool), cleavers, retouched flakes, scrapers, and segmental chopping tools. Materials used were determined by available local stone types; flint is most often associated with the tools but its use is concentrated in Western Europe; in Africa sedimentary and igneous rock such as mudstone and basalt were most widely used, for example. Other source materials include chalcedony, quartzite, andesite, sandstone, chert, and shale. Even relatively soft rock such as limestone could be exploited.^[20] In all cases the toolmakers worked their handaxes close to the source of their raw materials, suggesting that the Acheulean was a set of skills passed between individual groups.^[21]

Some smaller tools were made from large flakes that had been struck from stone cores. These flake tools and the distinctive waste flakes produced in Acheulean tool manufacture suggest a more considered technique, one that required the toolmaker to think one or two steps ahead during work that necessitated a clear sequence of steps to create perhaps several tools in one sitting.^{[citation needed]}

A hard hammerstone would first be used to rough out the shape of the tool from the stone by removing large flakes. These large flakes might be re-used to create tools. The tool maker would work around the circumference of the remaining stone core, removing smaller flakes alternately from each face. The scar created by the removal of the preceding flake would provide a striking platform for the removal of the next. Misjudged blows or flaws in the material used could cause problems, but a skilled toolmaker could overcome them.^{[citation needed]}

Once the roughout shape was created, a further phase of flaking was undertaken to make the tool thinner. The thinning flakes were removed using a softer hammer, such as bone or antler. The softer hammer required more careful preparation of the striking platform and this would be abraded using a coarse stone to ensure the hammer did not slide off when struck.^{[citation needed]}

Final shaping was then applied to the usable cutting edge of the tool, again using fine removal of flakes. Some Acheulean tools were sharpened instead by the removal of a tranchet flake. This was struck from the lateral edge of the hand-axe close to the intended cutting area, resulting in the removal of a flake running along (parallel to) the blade of the axe to create a neat and very sharp working edge. This distinctive tranchet flake can be identified amongst flint-knapping debris at Acheulean sites.^{[citation needed]}

Use

Acheulean hand-axe from Egypt. Found on a hill top plateau, 1400 feet above sea level, 9 miles NNW of the city of Naqada, Egypt. Paleolithic. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London

Loren Eiseley calculated^[22] that Acheulean tools have an average useful cutting edge of 20 centimetres (8 inches), making them much more efficient than the 5-centimetre (2 in) average of Oldowan tools.^{[citation needed]}

Use-wear analysis on Acheulean tools suggests there was generally no specialization in the different types created and that they were multi-use implements. Functions included hacking wood from a tree, cutting animal carcasses as well as scraping and cutting hides when necessary. Some tools, however, could have been better suited to digging roots or butchering animals than others.^{[citation needed]}

Alternative theories include a use for ovate hand-axes as a kind of hunting discus to be hurled at prey.^[23] Puzzlingly, there are also examples of sites where hundreds of hand-axes, many impractically large and also apparently unused, have been found in close association together. Sites such as Melka Kunturé in Ethiopia, Olorgesailie in Kenya, Isimila in Tanzania, and Kalambo Falls in Zambia have produced evidence that suggests Acheulean hand-axes might not always have had a functional purpose.^{[citation needed]}

Recently, it has been suggested^[24] that the Acheulean tool users adopted the handaxe as a social artifact, meaning that it embodied something beyond its function of a butchery or wood cutting tool. Knowing how to create and use these tools would have been a valuable skill and the more elaborate ones suggest that they played a role in their owners' identity and their interactions with others. This would help explain the apparent over-sophistication of some examples which may represent a "historically accrued social significance".^[25]

One theory goes further and suggests that some special hand-axes were made and displayed by males in search of a mate, using a large, well-made hand-axe to demonstrate that they possessed sufficient strength and skill to pass on to their offspring. Once they had attracted a female at a group gathering, it is suggested that they would discard their axes, perhaps explaining why so many are found together.^[26]

Hand-axe as a left over core

Stone knapping with limited digital dexterity makes the center of mass the required direction of flake removal. Physics then dictates a circular or oval end pattern, similar to the handaxe, for a leftover core after flake production. This would explain the abundance, wide distribution, proximity to source, consistent shape, and lack of actual use, of these artifacts.^{[27][additional citation(s) needed]}

Money

Mimi Lam, a researcher from the University of British Columbia, has suggested that Acheulean hand-axes became "the first commodity: A marketable good or service that has value and is used as an item for exchange."^[28]

Distribution

The Paleolithic
↑ Pliocene (before Homo)
Lower Paleolithic  (c. 3.3 Ma – 300 ka) Lomekwi (3.3 Ma) Oldowan (2.6–1.7 Ma) Acheulean (1.76–0.13 Ma) Madrasian (1.5 Ma) Soanian (500–130 ka) Clactonian (424–400 ka) Mugharan (400–220 ka)
Middle Paleolithic  (c. 300–50 ka) Mousterian (160–40 ka) Aterian (145–20 ka) Micoquien (130–70 ka) Sangoan (130–10 ka)
Upper Paleolithic  (c. 50–12 ka) Fertile Crescent: Emiran (50–40 ka) Ahmarian (46–42 ka) Baradostian (36–18 ka) Aurignacian (35–29 ka) Zarzian (20–10 ka) Kebaran (18–12.5 ka) Trialetian (16–8 ka) Natufian (14.5–11.5 ka) Khiamian (12.2–10.8 ka) Europe: Bohunician (48–40 ka) Châtelperronian (44.5–36 ka) Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (43–32 ka) Aurignacian (43–26 ka) Szeletian (41,000-37,000) Périgordian (35–20 ka) Gravettian (33–24 ka) Pavlovian (29–25 ka) Solutrean (22–17 ka) Epigravettian (20–10 ka) Magdalenian (17–12 ka) Hamburg (15.5–13.1 ka) Federmesser (14–12.8 ka) Azilian (14–10 ka) Ahrensburg (13–12 ka) Swiderian (11–8 ka) Africa: Khormusan (42–18 ka) Iberomaurusian (25–11 ka) Mushabian Halfan (22–14 ka) Qadan (15—11 ka) Sebilian (15–11 ka) Eburran (15–5 ka) Magosian (10–8 ka) Siberia: Mal'ta–Buret' (24–15 ka) Afontova Gora (21–12 ka}
↓ Mesolithic
v t e

Xiaochangliang

Zhoukoudian

Yuanmou County

Koobi Fora

Sterkfontein

Saint-Acheul

Bose Basin

Map of Afro-Eurasia showing important sites of the Acheulean industry (clickable map).

The geographic distribution of Acheulean tools – and thus the peoples who made them – is often interpreted as being the result of palaeo-climatic and ecological factors, such as glaciation and the desertification of the Sahara Desert.^[29]

Acheulean Biface from Saint Acheul

Acheulean stone tools have been found across the continent of Africa, save for the dense rainforest around the River Congo which is not thought to have been colonized by hominids until later. It is thought that from Africa their use spread north and east to Asia: from Anatolia, through the Arabian Peninsula, across modern day Iran^[30] and Pakistan, and into India, and beyond. In Europe their users reached the Pannonian Basin and the western Mediterranean regions, modern day France, the Low Countries, western Germany, and southern and central Britain. Areas further north did not see human occupation until much later, due to glaciation. In Athirampakkam at Chennai in Tamil Nadu the Acheulean age started at 1.51 mya and it is also prior than North India and Europe.^[31]

Until the 1980s, it was thought that the humans who arrived in East Asia abandoned the hand-axe technology of their ancestors and adopted chopper tools instead. An apparent division between Acheulean and non-Acheulean tool industries was identified by Hallam L. Movius, who drew the Movius Line across northern India to show where the traditions seemed to diverge. Later finds of Acheulean tools at Chongokni in South Korea and also in Mongolia and China, however, cast doubt on the reliability of Movius's distinction.^[32] Since then, a different division known as the Roe Line has been suggested. This runs across North Africa to Israel and thence to India, separating two different techniques used by Acheulean toolmakers. North and east of the Roe Line, Acheulean hand-axes were made directly from large stone nodules and cores; while, to the south and west, they were made from flakes struck from these nodules.^[33]

Biface (trihedral) Amar Merdeg, Mehran, National Museum of Iran

Acheulean tool users

For further details of the known environment and people during the time when Acheulean tools were being made, see Palaeolithic and Lower Palaeolithic.

Most notably, however, it is Homo ergaster (sometimes called early Homo erectus), whose assemblages are almost exclusively Acheulean, who used the technique. Later, the related species Homo heidelbergensis (the common ancestor of both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens) used it extensively.^{[citation needed]}Late Acheulean tools were still used by species derived from H. erectus, including Homo sapiens idaltu and early Neanderthals.^[34]

The symmetry of the hand-axes has been used to suggest that Acheulean tool users possessed the ability to use language;^[35] the parts of the brain connected with fine control and movement are located in the same region that controls speech. The wider variety of tool types compared to earlier industries and their aesthetically as well as functionally pleasing form could indicate a higher intellectual level in Acheulean tool users than in earlier hominines.^[36] Others argue that there is no correlation between spatial abilities in tool making and linguistic behaviour, and that language is not learned or conceived in the same manner as artefact manufacture.^[37]

Lower Palaeolithic finds made in association with Acheulean hand-axes, such as the Venus of Berekhat Ram,^[38] have been used to argue for artistic expression amongst the tool users. The incised elephant tibia from Bilzingsleben^[39] in Germany, and ochre finds from Kapthurin in Kenya^[40] and Duinefontein in South Africa,^[41] are sometimes cited as being some of the earliest examples of an aesthetic sensibility in human history. There are numerous other explanations put forward for the creation of these artefacts; however, evidence of human art did not become commonplace until around 50,000 years ago, after the emergence of modern Homo sapiens.^[42]

The kill site at Boxgrove in England is another famous Acheulean site. Up until the 1970s these kill sites, often at waterholes where animals would gather to drink, were interpreted as being where Acheulean tool users killed game, butchered their carcasses, and then discarded the tools they had used. Since the advent of zooarchaeology, which has placed greater emphasis on studying animal bones from archaeological sites, this view has changed. Many of the animals at these kill sites have been found to have been killed by other predator animals, so it is likely that humans of the period supplemented hunting with scavenging from already dead animals.^[43]

Excavations at the Bnot Ya'akov Bridge site, located along the Dead Sea rift in the southern Hula Valley of northern Israel, have revealed evidence of human habitation in the area from as early as 750,000 years ago.^[44] Archaeologists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem claim that the site provides evidence of "advanced human behavior" half a million years earlier than has previously been estimated. Their report describes an Acheulean layer at the site in which numerous stone tools, animal bones, and plant remains have been found.^[45]

Azykh cave located in Azerbaijan is another site where Acheulean tools were found. In 1968, a lower jaw of a new type of hominid was discovered in the 5th layer (so-called Acheulean layer) of the cave. Specialists named this type “Azykhantropus”.^[46][47][48]

Only limited artefactual evidence survives of the users of Acheulean tools other than the stone tools themselves. Cave sites were exploited for habitation, but the hunter-gatherers of the Palaeolithic also possibly built shelters such as those identified in connection with Acheulean tools at Grotte du Lazaret^[49] and Terra Amata near Nice in France. The presence of the shelters is inferred from large rocks at the sites, which may have been used to weigh down the bottoms of tent-like structures or serve as foundations for huts or windbreaks. These stones may have been naturally deposited. In any case, a flimsy wood or animal skin structure would leave few archaeological traces after so much time. Fire was seemingly being exploited by Homo ergaster, and would have been a necessity in colonising colder Eurasia from Africa. Conclusive evidence of mastery over it this early is, however, difficult to find.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• Oldowan
• Lithic reduction
• Lower Palaeolithic
• Palaeolithic
• Stone Age
• Stone tools
• Ndutu cranium

References

1. Wood, B, 2005, p87.
2. Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. (1989)
3. Frere, John. "Account of Flint Weapons Discovered at Hoxne in Suffolk.". Archaeologia 13 (1800): 204-205 [reprinted in Grayson (1983), 55-56, and Heizer (1962), 70-71].
4. Asfaw, Berhane; Beyene, Yonas; Suwa, Gen; Walter, Robert C.; White, Tim D.; WoldeGabriel, Giday; Yemane, Tesfaye (December 1992). "The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula". Nature. 360 (6406): 732–735. Bibcode:1992Natur.360..732A. doi:10.1038/360732a0. PMID 1465142. S2CID 4341455.
5. Pappu, Shanti; Gunnell, Yanni; Akhilesh, Kumar; Braucher, Régis; Taieb, Maurice; Demory, François; Thouveny, Nicolas (25 March 2011). "Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India". Science. 331 (6024): 1596–1599. Bibcode:2011Sci...331.1596P. doi:10.1126/science.1200183. PMID 21436450. S2CID 206531024.
6. Roche, Hélène; Brugal, Jean-Philip; Delagnes, Anne; Feibel, Craig; Harmand, Sonia; Kibunjia, Mzalendo; Prat, Sandrine; Texier, Pierre-Jean (December 2003). "Les sites archéologiques plio-pléistocènes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya : bilan synthétique 1997–2001". Comptes Rendus Palevol. 2 (8): 663–673. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2003.06.001.
7. Lepre, Christopher J.; Roche, Hélène; Kent, Dennis V.; Harmand, Sonia; Quinn, Rhonda L.; Brugal, Jean-Philippe; Texier, Pierre-Jean; Lenoble, Arnaud; Feibel, Craig S. (September 2011). "An earlier origin for the Acheulian". Nature. 477 (7362): 82–85. Bibcode:2011Natur.477...82L. doi:10.1038/nature10372. PMID 21886161. S2CID 4419567.
8. Rightmire, G. Philip (1993). "Variation among early Homo crania from Olduvai Gorge and the Koobi Fora region". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 90 (1): 1–33. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330900102. ISSN 1096-8644.
9. Goren-Inbar, N.; Feibel, C. S.; Verosub, K. L.; Melamed, Y.; Kislev, M. E.; Tchernov, E.; Saragusti, I. (2000). "Pleistocene Milestones on the Out-of-Africa Corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel". Science. 289 (5481): 944–947. Bibcode:2000Sci...289..944G. doi:10.1126/science.289.5481.944. PMID 10937996.
10. Scott, Gary R.; Gibert, Luis (September 2009). "The oldest hand-axes in Europe". Nature. 461 (7260): 82–85. Bibcode:2009Natur.461...82S. doi:10.1038/nature08214. PMID 19727198. S2CID 205217591.
11. Ashton, Nick; McNabb, John; Irving, Brian; Lewis, Simon; Parfitt, Simon (2 January 2015). "Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at Barnham, Suffolk". Antiquity. 68 (260): 585–589. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00047074.
12. "Neanderthal and early modern human stone tool culture co-existed for over 100,000 years". phys.org. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
13. Key, Alastair J. M.; Jarić, Ivan; Roberts, David L. (2 March 2021). "Modelling the end of the Acheulean at global and continental levels suggests widespread persistence into the Middle Palaeolithic". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 8 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00735-8. ISSN 2662-9992. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
14. Barton, RNE, Stone Age Britain English Heritage/BT Batsford:London 1997 qtd in Butler, 2005. See also Wymer, JJ, The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain, Wessex Archaeology and English Heritage, 1999.
15. Ashton, NM, McNabb, J, and Parfitt, S, Choppers and the Clactonian, a reinvestigation, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, pp21–28, qtd in Butler, 2005
16. Wymer, JJ, 1968, Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain: as represented by the Thames Valley, qtd in Adkins, L and R, 1998
17. Collins, D, 1978, Early Man in West Middlesex, qtd in Adkins, L and R, 1998
18. Stout, Dietrich; Apel, Jan; Commander, Julia; Roberts, Mark (January 2014). "Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK". Journal of Archaeological Science. 41: 576–590. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.001.
19. Barham, Lawrence; Mitchell, Peter (2008). The First Africans (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-521-61265-4.
20. Paddayya, K.; Jhaldiyal, Richa; Petraglia, M.D. (2 January 2015). "Excavation of an Acheulian workshop at Isampur, Karnataka (India)". Antiquity. 74 (286): 751–752. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00060269.
21. Gamble, C and Steele, J, 1999, Hominid ranging patterns and dietary strategies in Ullrich, H (ed.), Hominid evolution: lifestyles and survival strategies, pp 396–409, Gelsenkirchen: Edition Archaea.
22. Unattributed citation in Renfrew and Bahn, 1991, p277
23. O'Brien, Eileen M. (February 1981). "The Projectile Capabilities of an Acheulian Handaxe From Olorgesailie". Current Anthropology. 22 (1): 76–79. doi:10.1086/202607. See also Calvin, W, 1993, The unitary hypothesis: a common neural circuitry for novel manipulations, language, plan-ahead and throwing, in K.R. Gibson & T. Ingold (ed.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution: 230–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Gamble, C, 1997, Handaxes and palaeolithic individuals, in N. Ashton, F. Healey & P.Pettitt (ed.), Stone Age archaeology: 105–9. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Monograph 102.
25. White, Mark J. (18 February 2014). "On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 64: 15–44. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00002164.
26. Kohn, Marek; Mithen, Steven (2 January 2015). "Handaxes: products of sexual selection?". Antiquity. 73 (281): 518–526. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00065078.
27. "The Acheulean Handaxe".
28. Welsh, Jennifer (1 March 2012). "Tools May Have Been First Money". LiveScience.
29. Todd, Lawrence; Glantz, Michelle; Kappelman, John (2 January 2015). "Chilga Kernet: an Acheulean landscape on Ethiopia's western plateau". Antiquity. 76 (293): 611–612. doi:10.1017/S0003598X0009089X.
30. Biglari, Fereidoun; Shidrang, Sonia (September 2006). "The Lower Paleolithic Occupation of Iran". Near Eastern Archaeology. 69 (3–4): 160–168. doi:10.1086/NEA25067668.
31. Prasad, R. (24 March 2011). "Acheulian stone tools discovered near Chennai". The Hindu.
32. Hyeong Woo Lee, The Palaeolithic industries of Korea: chronology and related new findspots in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001
33. Gamble, C and Marshall, G, The shape of handaxes, the structure of the Acheulian world, in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001
34. Clark, J. Desmond; Beyene, Yonas; WoldeGabriel, Giday; Hart, William K.; Renne, Paul R.; Gilbert, Henry; Defleur, Alban; Suwa, Gen; Katoh, Shigehiro; Ludwig, Kenneth R.; Boisserie, Jean-Renaud; Asfaw, Berhane; White, Tim D. (June 2003). "Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia". Nature. 423 (6941): 747–752. Bibcode:2003Natur.423..747C. doi:10.1038/nature01670. PMID 12802333. S2CID 4312418.
35. Isaac, Glynn L. (October 1976). "Stages of Cultural Elaboration in the Pleistocene: Possible Archaeological Indicators of the Development of Language Capabilities". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 280 (1 Origins and E): 275–288. Bibcode:1976NYASA.280..275I. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25494.x.
36. Wynn, Thomas (June 1995). "Handaxe enigmas". World Archaeology. 27 (1): 10–24. doi:10.1080/00438243.1995.9980290.
37. Dibble, HL, 1989, The implications of stone tool types for the presenceof language during the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, in The Human Revolution (P Mellars and C Stringer eds) Edinburgh University Press, qtd in Renfrew and Bahn, 1991.
38. Goren-Inbar, N and Peltz, S, 1995, Additional remarks on the Berekhat Ram figure, Rock Art Research 12, 131–132, qtd in Scarre, 2005
39. Mania, D and Mania, U, 1988, Deliberate engravings on bone artefacts of Homo Erectus, Rock Art Research 5, 919–7, qtd in Scarre, 2005
40. Tryon, Christian A.; McBrearty, Sally (January 2002). "Tephrostratigraphy and the Acheulian to Middle Stone Age transition in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya". Journal of Human Evolution. 42 (1–2): 211–235. doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0513. PMID 11795975.
41. Cruz-Uribe, Kathryn; Klein, Richard G; Avery, Graham; Avery, Margaret; Halkett, David; Hart, Timothy; Milo, Richard G; Garth Sampson, C; Volman, Thomas P (1 May 2003). "Excavation of buried Late Acheulean (Mid-Quaternary) land surfaces at Duinefontein 2, Western Cape Province, South Africa". Journal of Archaeological Science. 30 (5): 559–575. doi:10.1016/S0305-4403(02)00202-9.
42. Scarre, 2005, chapter 3, p118 "However, objects whose artistic meaning is unequivocal become commonplace only after 50,000 years ago, when they are associated with the origins and spread of fully modern humans from Africa.
43. ...the most conservative conclusion today is that Acheulean people and their contemporaries definitely hunted big animals, though their success rate is not clear ibid, p 120.
44. Gesher Benot Ya'aqov Archived 2009-07-20 at the Wayback Machine, Hebrew University, Retrieved 2010-01-05.
45. Siegel-Itzkovich, Judy (December 22, 2009). "HU: Evidence of advanced human life half a million years earlier than previously thought". The Jerusalem Post.
46. Pavel Dolukhanov (2014). The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus. Routledge. ISBN 9781317892229.^{[page needed]}
47. V.A. Zubakov, I.I. Borzenkova (1990). Global Palaeoclimate of the Late Cenozoic. Elsevier. ISBN 9780080868530.^{[page needed]}
48. Ian Shaw, Robert Jameson, ed. (2008). A Dictionary of Archaeology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470751961.^{[page needed]}
49. De Lumley, 1975, Cultural evolution in France in its palaeoecological setting during the middle Pleistocene, in After the Australopithecines, Butzer, KW and Issac, G Ll. (eds) 745–808. The Hague:Mouton, qtd in Scarre, 2005

Bibliography

• Adkins, L; and R (1998). The Handbook of British Archaeology. London: Constable. ISBN 978-0-09-478330-0.

• Butler, C (2005). Prehistoric Flintwork. Tempus, Stroud. ISBN 978-0-7524-3340-0.

• Milliken, S; and J Cook (eds) (2001). A Very Remote Period Indeed. Papers on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe. Oxford: Oxbow. ISBN 978-1-84217-056-4.

• Renfrew, C; and P Bahn (1991). Archaeology, Theories Methods and Practice. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-27605-1.

• Scarre, C (ed.) (2005). The Human Past. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-28531-2.

• Wood, B (2005). Human Evolution A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280360-3.

External links

Look up Acheulean in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Media related to Acheulean at Wikimedia Commons