Alastair Key, Stephen J. Lycett, John A. J. Gowlett
{"title":"什么是“巨型”手斧?人体工程学阈值,功能影响和阿舍利社会信号潜能","authors":"Alastair Key, Stephen J. Lycett, John A. J. Gowlett","doi":"10.1017/s0959774325100127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>‘Giant’ handaxes are a widely recognized but infrequently investigated phenomenon of the Acheulean period. The scale of their distribution and the selective pressures underpinning their production are not well explored. Here, we report new data from a large-scale experimental study that identifies the point at which handaxes become too large to use with a single hand, alongside a review of known Acheulean assemblages displaying ‘giant’ handaxes. On the understanding that most ‘regularly sized’ Acheulean handaxes were gripped in one hand, if handaxes require bimanual grips, alternative explanations for their production—beyond unimanual butchery and woodworking tasks—should be sought. Our data identify clear mass, length and thickness thresholds for bimanual gripping. It is revealed that spatially and temporally diverse archaeological sites display ‘giant’ artefacts that exceed these thresholds. We suggest these atypically large handaxes would most plausibly have been utilitarian tools used for cutting, but in alternative ways to more regularly sized bifaces. This includes when worked materials were secured by another individual or structure, during digging activities, or when used as a stationary cutting ‘plane’ secured on the ground.</p>","PeriodicalId":47164,"journal":{"name":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is a ‘Giant’ Handaxe? Ergonomic Thresholds, Functional Impacts and Acheulean Social Signalling Potential\",\"authors\":\"Alastair Key, Stephen J. Lycett, John A. J. Gowlett\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0959774325100127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>‘Giant’ handaxes are a widely recognized but infrequently investigated phenomenon of the Acheulean period. The scale of their distribution and the selective pressures underpinning their production are not well explored. Here, we report new data from a large-scale experimental study that identifies the point at which handaxes become too large to use with a single hand, alongside a review of known Acheulean assemblages displaying ‘giant’ handaxes. On the understanding that most ‘regularly sized’ Acheulean handaxes were gripped in one hand, if handaxes require bimanual grips, alternative explanations for their production—beyond unimanual butchery and woodworking tasks—should be sought. Our data identify clear mass, length and thickness thresholds for bimanual gripping. It is revealed that spatially and temporally diverse archaeological sites display ‘giant’ artefacts that exceed these thresholds. We suggest these atypically large handaxes would most plausibly have been utilitarian tools used for cutting, but in alternative ways to more regularly sized bifaces. This includes when worked materials were secured by another individual or structure, during digging activities, or when used as a stationary cutting ‘plane’ secured on the ground.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774325100127\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CAMBRIDGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959774325100127","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
What is a ‘Giant’ Handaxe? Ergonomic Thresholds, Functional Impacts and Acheulean Social Signalling Potential
‘Giant’ handaxes are a widely recognized but infrequently investigated phenomenon of the Acheulean period. The scale of their distribution and the selective pressures underpinning their production are not well explored. Here, we report new data from a large-scale experimental study that identifies the point at which handaxes become too large to use with a single hand, alongside a review of known Acheulean assemblages displaying ‘giant’ handaxes. On the understanding that most ‘regularly sized’ Acheulean handaxes were gripped in one hand, if handaxes require bimanual grips, alternative explanations for their production—beyond unimanual butchery and woodworking tasks—should be sought. Our data identify clear mass, length and thickness thresholds for bimanual gripping. It is revealed that spatially and temporally diverse archaeological sites display ‘giant’ artefacts that exceed these thresholds. We suggest these atypically large handaxes would most plausibly have been utilitarian tools used for cutting, but in alternative ways to more regularly sized bifaces. This includes when worked materials were secured by another individual or structure, during digging activities, or when used as a stationary cutting ‘plane’ secured on the ground.
期刊介绍:
The Cambridge Archaeological Journal is the leading journal for cognitive and symbolic archaeology. It provides a forum for innovative, descriptive and theoretical archaeological research, paying particular attention to the role and development of human intellectual abilities and symbolic beliefs and practices. Specific topics covered in recent issues include: the use of cultural neurophenomenology for the understanding of Maya religious belief, agency and the individual, new approaches to rock art and shamanism, the significance of prehistoric monuments, ritual behaviour on Pacific Islands, and body metamorphosis in prehistoric boulder artworks. In addition to major articles and shorter notes, the Cambridge Archaeological Journal includes review features on significant recent books.