Acheulean Bifaces Research Articles

Climatic cyclicity, mammal communities and ecological stimuli of Early to early Middle Pleistocene hominin dispersal in the western Palaearctic

Dating the earliest human occupations in Western Europe and reconstructing links with climatic and environmental constraints is a central issue in Quaternary studies. Amongst the discovery of Palaeolithic artefacts ascribed to the Early Pleistocene in southeast Britain and central France the Somme Basin, where the Acheulean type-site Amiens Saint-Acheul is located, is a key area for addressing this topic. Research undertaken over the past 20 years on both Quaternary fluvial and loess sequences of this area has provided a unique dataset for the study of the relations between human occupations and environmental variations. Studies based on an interdisciplinary approach combining sedimentology, palaeontology and geochronology have highlighted the impact of the 100 kyrs cycles on terrace formation during the last million years. In this terrace system, the earliest in situ Acheulean settlements known in the 1990s were dated to early MIS 12 (±450 ka), but new field discoveries, at Amiens “Rue du Manège”, dated to ± 550 ka, significantly increase the age of the oldest human occupation in the area. In this context, new fieldwork has been undertaken in Abbeville at the Carrière Carpentier site, famous for its White Marl deposit attributed to the Cromerian and in the same terrace level where the former discoveries of “Abbevillian bifaces” were made by d'Ault du Mesnil. This research is based on an interdisciplinary approach, combining sedimentology, paleontology, dating (ESR on quartz and ESR/U-series on teeth) and archaeology. According to the various bio-proxies (molluscs, large vertebrates, small mammals), the White Marl was deposited during the early part of an interglacial phase in an aquatic slow-flowing environment, as emphasized by the development of oncoliths and the presence of fish and aquatic molluscs. The landscape was composed of a mosaic of open bush and forest areas, in which wet and grassy vegetation developed on riverbanks. On the basis of terrace stratigraphy, ESR and ESR/U-series dating results, and biostratigraphic data, the fluvial deposits of the White Marl can be securely attributed to MIS 15. In addition, some Acheulean bifaces were discovered at the base of the slope deposits, directly overlying the fluvial sequence. These artefacts are most likely coeval with the end of MIS 15 or an early stage of MIS 14, between 550 and 500 ka, and represent, together with the artefacts from Amiens “Rue du Manège”, the oldest in situ evidence of Acheulean occupation in Northern France. However, no unquestionable artefacts have been discovered in the White Marl or in the underlying gravel layer. These discoveries contribute to the chronology of the earliest evidence of hominin occupations in north-western Europe which may be related to Homo heidelbergensis.

Biface Distributions And The Movius Line: A Southeast Asian Perspective

The 'Movius Line' is the putative technological demarcation line mapping the easternmost geographical distribution of Acheulean bifacial tools. It is traditionally argued by proponents of the Movius Line that 'true' Acheulean bifaces, especially handaxes, are only found in abundance in Africa and western Eurasia, whereas in eastern Asia, in front of the 'line', these implements are rare or absent altogether. Here we argue, however, that the Movius Line relies on classifying undated surface bifaces as Acheulean on typological grounds alone, a long-standing and widely accepted practice in Africa and western Eurasia, but one that is not seen as legitimate in eastern Asian contexts. A review of the literature shows that bifaces are relatively common as surface finds in Southeast Asia and on this basis we argue that the Movius Line is in need of reassessment.

Le Paléolithique ancien de l’Europe orientale et du Caucase

Currently, only Tréhougol’naya Cave has reliably dated evidence for human settlement in Eastern Europe and Caucasus, from the beginning through the middle of the Middle Pleistocene. In Eastern Europe, assemblages from Khriatchi and Mikhailovskoé, and possibly Darvagchai I, appear to be the only stratified locations that tentatively can be compared (despite problems with these materials) with Tréhougol’naya. In the eastern limits of Central Europe, layer VI in Korolevo I is the only stratified assemblage that may be compared with Tréhougol’naya. All these Lower Paleolithic occupations yielded the Pre-Mousterian small tool industries with some pebble tools, but without Acheulean bifaces and Levallois technique. These data suggest that Eastern Europe lies outside the distribution range of the Acheulean techno-complex demarcated with the “Movius Line”. In the Southern Caucasus, the Dmanissi hominine and lithic records document the fact that the earliest small-brained humans – probably later H. habilis-rudolfensis or earlier H. ergaster-erectus hominids bearing Pre-Oldowan technology – initially left Africa and appeared in Western Asia as early as 1.8 Ma ago. However, in the Southern Caucasus, the available chronological data indicate that the Acheulean complex has a later temporal appearance here compared to the Upper Acheulean or Acheulo-Yabrudian in Western Asia. Two main Upper Acheulean industrial variants currently can be recognized in the Southern Caucasus. The first, called the Kudarian by the author (from the caves of Kudaro I, Kudaro III, and Azyk), is characterized by lithics made from mostly siliceous rocks, rare Acheulean bifaces, and non-Levallois flaking technique. The second variant is characterized by lithics made from volcanic rocks, numerous Acheulean bifaces, and often more laminar or Levallois debitage. It can be suggested that there are independent origins for these Southern Caucasus Upper Acheulean industrial variants. Possible roots of the Acheulean assemblages of Kudarian variant might be in the local earlier Lower Paleolithic small tool assemblages with some pebble tools but without Acheulean bifaces. The other Caucasus variant of the Upper Acheulean appears to be related to the Levantine Upper Acheulean.

Flakes Crossing the Straits? Entame Flakes and Northern Africa–Iberia Contact During the Acheulean

The entame core method was defined after studying the Acheulean bifaces from the site of Ternifine, Algeria. This specialized core method for the production of larges flakes (>10 cm) used for biface blanks involves the detachment of primary large flakes from skillfully selected quartzite cobbles. While technologically simple, a competent selection of raw material and dexterous detachment of the flake resulted in a blank perfectly suitable for the production of bifaces, with minimal further shaping required. This core method resulted in high frequencies of entame blanks in the Ternifine lithic assemblages, as well as from the Iberian Peninsula Acheulean, but not in assemblages from other large flake Acheulean sites. It is suggested that the frequent use of the entame core method common to both North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula indicates similarity in lithic tradition during the Acheulean. This may support the view of North African origin for the Iberian Acheulean during the Middle Pleistocene.

Beyond the Acheulean: A view on the Lower Paleolithic occupation of Western Eurasia

A review of the available data is used to discuss the origins of the Lower Paleolithic industries without Acheulean bifaces and the Acheulean biface technologies in Western Eurasia. The recent discoveries of the earliest hominid fossils (Dmanisi and Sima del Elefante) suggest that the first Homo to enter Western Eurasia were Homo habilis-rudolfensis hominids originated from Africa and bearing a core-flake industry of Pre-Oldowan type. In Western Eurasia, the core-flake industry further evolved into the core-flake-tool industry. This latter became the ancestral industry for various industry types of the Pre-Mousterian complex, and survived in the territory between the Alps and Caucasus, now demarcated by the “Movius Line” beyond the Acheulean distribution, until the end of the Lower Paleolithic. The data support Obermaier's hypothesis of the 1920s about the distribution in Central and Eastern Europe of the Pre-Mousterian complex, compared to the area of Acheulean complex distribution in Western Europe and Western Asia. The frontier for the maximum expansion of the Acheulean in Western Eurasia changed through the time as the Acheulean biface technologies expanded from Africa northward to Europe and the distribution area of non-Acheulean core-flake-tool industries was reduced. Study of interrelations between the hominid populations coming from Africa making Acheulean large cutting tools, and the hominid populations bearing a more primitive core-flake-tool industry that apparently were the aboriginal hominid population in Western Eurasia, is one of the main issues in Lower Paleolithic research.

L’image avant l’image : réflexions sur le colloque

It is usually considered that symbolic function is a trait of modern human. And this way, namely in Europe, the coming out of figurative representations on various supports, preeminently appearing as a symbolic behaviour, falls in with Homo sapiens occurring at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. If this fact seems well established, however it looks likely that the emergence of image and aesthetic feeling has to be dated back to the Lower Palaeolithic. Indeed, the Acheulean biface shows a morphological symmetry and a remarkable aesthetic. Whenever this tool exclusively constitutes the lithic assemblage of a culture, as it is the case in the site of Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (central Syria), it can be suggested that it conveys a strong symbolic power. The question is, was this harmonic aspect of the shape really conceived by the tool maker or does it result from an unconscious phenomenon related to the knapping of the artefact? If it is indeed a conscious and desired symmetry, it is not impossible that the artisan tried to project his own image into the tool. The second stage during the genesis of figurative pictures issuing from mental images appears as Human turned his inner reality into graphic expression. Pictures most certainly were born from a surge of intellectual need just as tools had appeared, long before, to meet vital necessities. The rock surface may have stood for a privileged interface for accepting an image full of signification. Starting from the fact that Man is both a biological and a social being, the use of pictures might have worked as a means of reinforcing the cohesion of the two entities. In the course of time, figurative images as they appeared and developed, might have enabled the individual to better fit into his social group. Image has truly been giving life to matter and substance, the ultimate and crucial stage of humanisation.

The Lower Paleolithic of the Indian subcontinent

AbstractThis broad overview highlights the Indian subcontinent as an important and exciting source of new discoveries regarding Lower Paleolithic hominins and their biological and behavioral evolution. Broadly situated in the center of the Old World, the region arbitrarily encompasses Pakistan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Bhutan; it represents the richest easternmost domain of classic Acheulean bifaces in the Old World.1 The region comprises diverse ecological zones with complex geological and climatic histories, including a bi‐annual monsoon prevalent since the Miocene, all of which had major impacts on faunal and floral distributions and associated hominin adaptations.

The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability

The Lower Palaeolithic, epitomized by the Acheulean biface technology, is characterized by a degree of temporal and geographical stasis that is unparalleled in the lithic record. The reasons for this phenomenon have provoked considerable debate. However, whilst it is important to understand the overall stability of this techno complex, it is also important to address the considerable degree of variability evident at the level of individual locales. Why, for instance, do bifaces show a range of shapes and degrees of refinement? Why do some show high degrees of symmetry whilst others do not? Whilst it is widely acknowledged that such variability is the result of a number of factors, to date proposed theories tend to stress one factor as being of paramount importance. These have encompassed, amongst others, the influence of raw material, subsistence function, cognitive ability and the social context of manufacture upon biface form. This article, informed by recent empirical, experimental and theoretical work, attempts to move away from these largely single-factor models to present a multi-factorial model for biface variability. This model envisages that variability is caused by the differing motivations and constraints — ecological, physiological, biological, cognitive and social — which act upon the individual agent at any given point in time.

On questions surrounding the Acheulean ‘tradition’

The Acheulean, sometimes known as ‘the great handaxe tradition’, is the longest-lasting entity in the human cultural record. The oldest sites are in Africa at around 1.6 million years ago and the most recent approach the last 100,000 years. The geographical extent is also enormous, ranging across Africa, the Middle East, most of Europe and large parts of Asia. Is it however a real tradition? The Acheulean represents a set of stone-working ideas that endure, but the strength of ‘tradition’ is often an assumption made by archaeologists. This paper re-examines Acheulean biface variation, looking at sets of assemblages measured in different ways, but amenable to discriminant analysis (DFA), which is able to highlight differences useful in classification. The analyses show significant differences between European and African assemblages. In the case of the Far East, in line with others, we provide further analyses suggestive of technological differences between putative ‘handaxes’ from Korea and some ‘classic’ western assemblages. However, it is not yet fully clear how far a ‘typical’ Acheulean tradition is represented, as matching of Far Eastern assemblages to other parts of the world depends to an extent upon the criteria used. With regard to the more general Acheulean paradox, the paper notes parallels in biological studies with the idea that a single widely extending phenomenon can incorporate elements of both unity and diversity.

Réflexions sur l’Acheuléen d’Anatolie

The Anatolia occupies one of the main routes for the dispersal of Homo erectus into the Eurasia. The Acheulean bifaces found on each region of Anatolia are the most important evidences of this situation. This vast distribution of the Acheulean bifaces in Anatolia indicates that all of the Anatolia should stay in the Movius Line. This means that the Movius Line should be reexaminate. Recently, the fossil remains of Homo erectus found in Dmanisi (Georgia) and their very old dates around 1.8 million years put forward the importance of Anatolia one more time. Homo erectus who came in Anatolia by following the Levant Corridor might used the Anatolian bridge for passing to the Transcaucasia. If the well-preserved cave site on the line that expands from Hatay to Kars in Anatolia founds and excavates, it will prove additional information some problems about the Homo erectus movements and distribution of Acheulean Industrial Tradition in West Asia. This paper reviews the evidence for the Acheulean in Anatolia and discusses the distribution of Acheulean bifaces in Anatolia, generally found in open air site.

Les cultures acheuléennes et la question de l'émergence de la pensée symbolique chez Homo erectus à partir des données relatives à la forme symétrique et harmonique des bifaces

The Acheulean cultures and the question of the emergence of symbolic thought among Homo erectus from the data related to morphological symmetry and aesthetic of the bifaces. It is usually considered that artistic creativity is a trait of the modern human and that art appears only with Homo sapiens, at the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. If this fact seems well established, however it looks likely that the emergence of symbolic thought and aesthetic feeling has to be dated back to the Old Palaeolithic. Indeed, the Acheulean biface shows a morphological symmetry and a remarkable aesthetic. Whenever this tool exclusively constitutes the lithic assemblage of a culture, as it is the case in the site of Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar (central Syria), it can be suggested that it represents a strong symbolic component. The question is, was this harmonic aspect of the form really conceived by the tool maker or does it result from an unconscious phenomenon related to the knapping of the artefact? If it is indeed a conscious and desired symmetry, it is not impossible that the artisan tried to project a part of him into the tool. Through this harmonic component of the bifaces, it seems that Homo erectus was already capable of symbolic behaviour and a kind of artistic creativity. It is not a question of art as traditional conception, but probably of its first steps. To cite this article: J.-M. Le Tensorer, C. R. Palevol 5 (2006) .

On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain

The significance of morphological variation in Acheulean bifaces has been a central issue in Palaeolithic research for well over a century. For much of that period interpretation has been dominated by culture-historical models and it is only in the past 20 years that other explanatory factors have received adequate attention. This paper examines the combined role of several of these factors – namely raw materials, reduction intensity, and function – on biface variability in the British Isles, with special reference to the two major shaped-based ‘tradition’ devised by Roe (1967; 1968). First-hand examination of bifaces from 19 assemblages suggests that final biface shape depends largely on the dimensions of the original raw materials and the technofunctional strategies designed to deal with them. Through these observations a new model is generated and tested. This suggests that the patterning in the British Acheulean simply reflects the nature of the resources available at a site and the hominid procurement and technological strategies used to exploit them. According to this model, well-worked ovates with all-round edges were preferentially produced wherever raw materials were large and robust enough to frequently support intensive reduction procedures, usually when obtained from primary flint sources. Assemblages characterised by partially-edged, moderately-reduced pointed forms were only manufactured when smaller, narrower blanks, that imposed restrictions on human technological actions regarding the location and extent of working, were exploited. Such blanks were usually obtained from a secondary flint source, such as river gravel. Thus, Roe's pointed and ovate ‘traditions’ are seen not as the products of different biface making populations, but as the same broad populations coping with the exigencies of a heterogeneous environment, using different resources in an adaptive, flexible manner.

Allometry and multidimensional form in Acheulean bifaces from Kilombe, Kenya

Abstract We demonstrate that allometry is a major factor in the variation of hand-axes from the late Lower Pleistocene Acheulean site of Kilombe in Kenya. Acheulean hand-axes were made in a range of sizes, from ca. 8-30 cm in length, and are superficially similar in form at different sizes, even though functional requirements might be expected to vary. To make an appropriate study of three-dimensional form we require a method for analysing size-related change in multiple measures of form. Jolicoeur's multivariate generalization of the allometric equation, (y = bx4), provides a suitable technique, based on the angular relationships of co-ordinates for each measure to the first principal component of the covariance matrix. We have applied this approach to an analysis of several biface assemblages from separate parts of the Kilombe site complex. Allometry is an important component in all the localities, but one area observes a different set of adjustments. We argue that the allometry is probably imposed in response to functional requirements: it suggests that Homo erectus was constrained to follow a number of different guiding principles in the manufacturing process.