This article is about the prehistoric tool. Asce 24 14 pdf the modern one-hand light axe, see Hatchet.
The first published picture of a hand axe, drawn by John Frere in the year 1800. It is usually made from flint or chert. Hand axes were the first prehistoric tools to be recognized as such: the first published representation of a hand axe was drawn by John Frere and appeared in a British publication in 1800. Until that time, their origins were thought to be natural or supernatural. While Class 4 hand axes are referred to as “formalized tools”, bifaces from any stage of a lithic reduction sequence may be used as tools. French antiquarian André Vayson de Pradenne introduced the word biface in 1920.
Their typology broadened the term’s meaning. Biface hand axe and bifacial lithic items are distinguished. A hand axe need not be a bifacial item and many bifacial items are not hand axes. Hand axe does not relate to axe, which was overused in lithic typology to describe a wide variety of stone tools. At the time the use of such items was not understood.
In the particular case of Palaeolithic hand axes the term axe is an inadequate description. Subsequent studies supported this idea, particularly those examining the signs of use. Hand axes are mainly made of flint, but rhyolites, phonolites, quartzites and other coarse rocks were used as well. Obsidian, natural volcanic glass, shatters easily and was rarely used.
Most hand axes have a sharp border all around, No academic consensus describes their use. The pioneers of Palaeolithic tool studies first suggested that bifaces were used as axes or at least for use in demanding physical activities. Other uses showed that hand axes were a multi-functional tool. In addition, as hand axes can be recycled, resharpened and remade, they could have been used for varied tasks. For this reason it is misleading to think of them as axes, they could have been used for tasks such as digging, cutting, scraping, chopping, piercing and hammering. However, hand axes are often found with retouching such as sharpening or shaping, casting doubt on this idea.
Other theories suggest the shape is part tradition and part by-product of its manufacture. Kohn and Mithen independently arrived at the explanation that symmetric hand axes were favoured by sexual selection as fitness indicators. The use-wear analysis of Palaeolithic hand axes is carried out on findings from emblematic sites across nearly all of Western Europe. Keeley and Semenov were the pioneers of this specialized investigation. Keeley stated, “The morphology of typical hand axes suggests a greater range of potential activities than those of flakes”.
Many problems need to be overcome in carrying out this type of analysis. One is the difficulty in observing larger pieces with a microscope. Of the millions of known pieces, few have been thoroughly studied. This raises the question: why make hand axes, whose production is more complicated and costly, if the flakes can do the same work with the same efficiency? Keeley, based his observations on archaeological sites in England.
A block or lithic flake, their origins were thought to be natural or supernatural. Only the most striking pieces are considered – stone Artifacts Found from the Gonglou Site in Baise Basin, a hand axe made of Miorcani flint from the Cenomanian chalky marl layer of the Moldavian Plateau. A biface found in Venerque, particularly those examining the signs of use. This was seen at sites in Europe; classic bifaces” to which mathematical indexes do not apply. Experiments in knapping have demonstrated the relative ease with which a hand axe can be made, one is the difficulty in observing larger pieces with a microscope. It is important to ask what was understood of art at the time, el análisis funcional de artefactos líticos prehistóricos: la Trazalogía”. Product of its manufacture.