View source for Acheulean

{{short description|Archaeological culture associated with Homo erectus}}
{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
{{More citations needed|date=September 2024}}
{{
Infobox archaeological culture
|name        = Acheulean
|map         = Distribution of the Acheulean cultural tradition as it is currently understood.webp
|mapcaption= Distribution of the Acheulean cultural tradition as it is currently understood, characterised by large bifacially flaked cutting tools (handaxes and [[Cleaver (tool)|cleavers]])<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Key |first1=Alastair J. M. |last2=Jarić |first2=Ivan |last3=Roberts |first3=David L. |title=Modelling the end of the Acheulean at global and continental levels suggests widespread persistence into the Middle Palaeolithic |journal=Humanities and Social Sciences Communications |date=2 March 2021 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=1–12 |doi=10.1057/s41599-021-00735-8 |language=en |issn=2662-9992}}</ref>
|mapsize=300
|altnames    =
|horizon     =
|region      = Africa, Europe, and Asia
|period      = [[Lower Paleolithic]]
|dates       = 1.95–0.13 Mya
|typesite    = [[Saint-Acheul (Amiens)]]
|majorsites  = 
|extra       =
|precededby  = [[Oldowan]]
|followedby  = [[Mousterian]], [[Clactonian]], [[Micoquien]], [[Aterian]], [[Soanian]], [[Sangoan]], [[Acheulo-Yabrudian complex]], [[Fauresmith industry]]
}}

[[File:Bifaz_cordiforme.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|A cordiform biface as commonly found in the Acheulean (replica)]]
[[Image:Acheuleanhandaxes.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Acheulean hand-axes from [[Kent]]. The types shown are (clockwise from top) cordate, ficron, and ovate.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}]]
[[Image:Terra-Amata-Hut.gif|thumb|upright=1.2|Depiction of a [[Terra Amata (archaeological site)|Terra Amata hut]] in [[Nice, France]] dated to 400&nbsp;thousand years ago, as postulated by [[Henry de Lumley]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.musee-terra-amata.org/musee/le-site-acheuleen-de-terra-amata/ |title=Le site acheuléen de Terra Amata |language=fr |trans-title=The Acheulean site of Terra Amata |author=Musée de Préhistoire Terra Amata |website=Musée de Préhistoire Terra Amata |access-date=10 June 2022}}</ref>]]
'''Acheulean''' ({{IPAc-en|ə|ˈ|ʃ|uː|l|i|ə|n}}; also '''Acheulian''' and '''Mode II'''), from the French {{Lang|fr|acheuléen}} after the type site of [[Saint-Acheul (Amiens)|Saint-Acheul]], is an [[archaeological industry]] of [[stone tool]] manufacture characterized by the distinctive oval and pear-shaped "[[hand axe]]s" associated with ''[[Homo erectus]]'' and derived species such as ''[[Homo heidelbergensis]]''.

Acheulean tools were produced during the [[Lower Palaeolithic]] era across Africa and much of West Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Europe, and are typically found with ''[[Homo erectus]]'' remains. It is thought that Acheulean technologies first developed about 2&nbsp;million years ago, derived from the more primitive [[Oldowan]] technology associated with ''[[Homo habilis]]''.<ref name=Mussi>{{cite journal |last1=Margherita Mussi|display-authors=etal |title=Early ''Homo erectus'' lived at high altitudes and produced both Oldowan and Acheulean tools |journal=Science |date=Oct 12, 2023 |volume=382 |issue=6671 |pages=713–718 |doi=10.1126/science.add9115|pmid=37824630 |bibcode=2023Sci...382..713M |s2cid=263971011 |url=https://hal.science/hal-04239932 }}</ref>
The Acheulean includes at least the early part of the [[Middle Paleolithic]]. Its end is not well defined; if [[Sangoan]] (also known as Epi-Acheulean) is included, it may be taken to last until as late as 130,000 years ago. In Europe and Western Asia, early [[Neanderthals]] adopted Acheulean technology, transitioning to [[Mousterian]] by about 160,000 years ago.

==History of research==
The [[type site]] for the Acheulean is [[Saint-Acheul (Amiens)|Saint-Acheul]], a suburb of [[Amiens]], the capital of the [[Somme (department)|Somme]] [[Departments of France|department]] in [[Picardy (region)|Picardy]], where artifacts were found in 1859.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'' 2nd Ed. (1989)</ref>

[[John Frere]] is generally credited as being the first to suggest a very ancient date for Acheulean hand-axes. In 1797, he sent two examples to the [[Royal Academy]] in London from [[Hoxne]] in [[Suffolk]]. He had found them in prehistoric lake deposits along with the bones of extinct animals and concluded that they were made by people "who had not the use of metals" and that they belonged to a "very ancient period indeed, even beyond the present world".<ref>Frere, John. {{ws | [[s: Archaeologia/Volume 13/Account of Flint Weapons discovered at Hoxne in Suffolk|"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].</ref> His ideas were, however, ignored by his contemporaries, who subscribed to a pre-[[Darwinism|Darwinian]] view of [[human evolution]].{{citation needed|date=September 2015}}

Later, [[Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes]], working between 1836 and 1846, collected further examples of hand-axes and [[fossil]]ised animal bone from the gravel [[river terrace]]s of the [[Somme River|Somme]] near [[Abbeville]] in northern France. Again, his theories attributing great antiquity to the finds were spurned by his colleagues, until one of de Perthes' main opponents, [[Marcel Jérôme Rigollot]], began finding more tools near Saint Acheul. Following visits to both Abbeville and Saint Acheul by the geologist [[Joseph Prestwich]], the age of the tools was finally accepted.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/joseph-prestwich/ | title=Joseph Prestwich }}</ref>

In 1872, [[Louis Laurent Gabriel de Mortillet]] described the characteristic hand-axe tools as belonging to ''L'Epoque de St Acheul''. The industry was renamed as the Acheulean in 1925.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

== Dating the Acheulean ==
Providing calendrical dates and ordered chronological sequences in the study of early stone tool manufacture is often accomplished through one or more geological techniques, such as [[radiometric dating]], often [[potassium-argon dating]], and [[magnetostratigraphy]]. From the [[List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Ethiopia|Konso Formation]] of Ethiopia, Acheulean hand-axes are dated to about 1.5&nbsp;million years ago using [[radiometric dating]] of deposits containing volcanic ashes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Asfaw |first1=Berhane |last2=Beyene |first2=Yonas |last3=Suwa |first3=Gen |last4=Walter |first4=Robert C. |last5=White |first5=Tim D. |last6=WoldeGabriel |first6=Giday |last7=Yemane |first7=Tesfaye |title=The earliest Acheulean from Konso-Gardula |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |date=December 1992 |volume=360 |issue=6406 |pages=732–735 |doi=10.1038/360732a0 |pmid=1465142 |bibcode=1992Natur.360..732A |s2cid=4341455}}</ref> Acheulean tools in South Asia have also been found to be dated as far as 1.5&nbsp;million years ago.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pappu |first1=Shanti |last2=Gunnell |first2=Yanni |last3=Akhilesh |first3=Kumar |last4=Braucher |first4=Régis |last5=Taieb |first5=Maurice |last6=Demory |first6=François |last7=Thouveny |first7=Nicolas |title=Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian Hominins in South India |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |date=25 March 2011 |volume=331 |issue=6024 |pages=1596–1599 |doi=10.1126/science.1200183 |pmid=21436450 |bibcode=2011Sci...331.1596P |s2cid=206531024}}</ref> However, in 2003 examples of the Acheulean from the [[West Turkana]] region of [[Kenya]] were described<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roche |first1=Hélène |last2=Brugal |first2=Jean-Philip |last3=Delagnes |first3=Anne |last4=Feibel |first4=Craig |last5=Harmand |first5=Sonia |last6=Kibunjia |first6=Mzalendo |last7=Prat |first7=Sandrine |last8=Texier |first8=Pierre-Jean |title=Les sites archéologiques plio-pléistocènes de la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya : bilan synthétique 1997–2001 |journal=Comptes Rendus Palevol |date=December 2003 |volume=2 |issue=8 |pages=663–673 |doi=10.1016/j.crpv.2003.06.001|bibcode=2003CRPal...2..663R |url=https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00134898/file/Rocheetal2003.pdf }}</ref> which have been dated through the method of [[magnetostratigraphy]] to about 1.76&nbsp;million years ago,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lepre |first1=Christopher J. |last2=Roche |first2=Hélène |last3=Kent |first3=Dennis V. |last4=Harmand |first4=Sonia |last5=Quinn |first5=Rhonda L. |last6=Brugal |first6=Jean-Philippe |last7=Texier |first7=Pierre-Jean |last8=Lenoble |first8=Arnaud |last9=Feibel |first9=Craig S. |title=An earlier origin for the Acheulian |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |date=September 2011 |volume=477 |issue=7362 |pages=82–85 |doi=10.1038/nature10372 |pmid=21886161 |bibcode=2011Natur.477...82L |s2cid=4419567|url=https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8MK6PQF/download }}</ref> and in 2023 finds from Ethiopia were reported dating to 1.95&nbsp;million years ago.<ref name=Mussi/> The earliest user of Acheulean tools may have been ''[[Homo ergaster]]'', who first appeared about 1.8&nbsp;million years ago (not all researchers use this formal name, and instead prefer to call these users ''early [[Homo erectus]]''{{sfn|Wood|2005|p=87}}). However, it is impossible to know for sure whether ''Homo ergaster'' was the only maker of early Acheulean tools, since other hominin species, such as ''[[Homo habilis]]'', also lived in East Africa at this time.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rightmire |first=G. Philip |date=1993 |title=Variation among early Homo crania from Olduvai Gorge and the Koobi Fora region |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.1330900102 |journal=[[American Journal of Physical Anthropology]] |language=en |volume=90 |issue=1 |pages=1–33 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.1330900102 |pmid=8470752 |issn=1096-8644|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

From geological dating of sedimentary deposits, it appears that the Acheulean originated in Africa and spread to Asian, Middle Eastern, and European areas sometime between 1.5&nbsp;million years ago and about 800&nbsp;thousand years ago.<ref name=Goren-Inbar2000>{{cite journal |last1=Goren-Inbar |first1=N. |last2=Feibel |first2=C. S. |last3=Verosub |first3=K. L. |last4=Melamed |first4=Y. |last5=Kislev |first5=M. E. |last6=Tchernov |first6=E. |last7=Saragusti |first7=I. |title=Pleistocene Milestones on the Out-of-Africa Corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel |doi=10.1126/science.289.5481.944 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=289 |issue=5481 |pages=944–947 |year=2000 |pmid=10937996 |bibcode=2000Sci...289..944G}}</ref><ref name=Scott2009>{{cite journal |last1=Scott |first1=Gary R. |last2=Gibert |first2=Luis |title=The oldest hand-axes in Europe |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |date=September 2009 |volume=461 |issue=7260 |pages=82–85 |doi=10.1038/nature08214 |pmid=19727198 |bibcode=2009Natur.461...82S |s2cid=205217591}}</ref> In individual regions, this dating can be considerably refined; in Europe for example, it was thought that Acheulean methods did not reach the continent until around 500,000 years ago. However, more recent research demonstrated that [[hand-axe]]s from Spain were made more than 900,000 years ago.<ref name=Scott2009/>

Relative dating techniques (based on a presumption that technology progresses over time) suggest that Acheulean tools followed on from earlier, cruder tool-making methods, but there is considerable chronological overlap in early prehistoric stone-working industries, with evidence in some regions that Acheulean tool-using groups were contemporary with other, less sophisticated industries such as the [[Clactonian]]<ref name="barnham" /> and then later with the more sophisticated [[Mousterian]], as well. It is therefore important not to see the Acheulean as a neatly defined period or one that happened as part of a clear sequence but as one tool-making technique that flourished especially well in early prehistory. The enormous geographic spread of Acheulean techniques also makes the name unwieldy as it represents numerous regional variations on a similar theme. The term Acheulean does not represent a common [[culture]] in the modern sense, rather it is a basic method for making stone tools that was shared across much of the [[Old World]].{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

The very earliest Acheulean [[assemblage (archaeology)|assemblages]] often contain numerous [[Oldowan]]-style [[lithic flake|flakes]] and [[lithic core|core forms]] and it is almost certain that the Acheulean developed from this older industry. These industries are known as the Developed Oldowan and are almost certainly transitional between the [[Oldowan]] and Acheulean.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

Regionally subdivided end times of the Acheulean show that it persisted long after the diffusion of [[Middle Palaeolithic]] technologies in multiple continental regions and ended over 100,000 years apart – in Africa and the Near East: 175–166 kya, in Europe: 141–130 kya and in Asia: 57–53 kya.<ref>{{cite news |title=Neanderthal and early modern human stone tool culture co-existed for over 100,000 years |url=https://phys.org/news/2021-03-neanderthal-early-modern-human-stone.html |access-date=18 April 2021 |work=phys.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Key |first1=Alastair J. M. |last2=Jarić |first2=Ivan |last3=Roberts |first3=David L. |title=Modelling the end of the Acheulean at global and continental levels suggests widespread persistence into the Middle Palaeolithic |journal=Humanities and Social Sciences Communications |date=2 March 2021 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=1–12 |doi=10.1057/s41599-021-00735-8 |language=en |issn=2662-9992 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

==Acheulean stone tools==

===Stages===
[[Image:Biface Cintegabelle MHNT PRE 2009.0.201.1 V2.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|An Acheulean handaxe, Haute-Garonne France – [[MHNT]]]]
In the four divisions of prehistoric stone-working,<ref name="modes" /> Acheulean artefacts are classified as Mode 2, meaning they are more advanced than the (usually earlier) Mode 1 tools of the [[Clactonian]] or [[Oldowan]]/[[Abbevillian]] industries but lacking the sophistication of the (usually later) Mode 3 Middle Palaeolithic technology, exemplified by the [[Mousterian]] industry.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

The Mode 1 industries created rough [[flake tool]]s by hitting a suitable stone with a [[hammerstone]]. The resulting flake that broke off would have a natural sharp edge for cutting and could afterwards be sharpened further by striking another smaller flake from the edge if necessary (known as "retouch"). These early toolmakers may also have worked the stone they took the flake from (known as a [[lithic core|core]]) to create [[chopper core]]s although there is some debate over whether these items were tools or just discarded cores.<ref name="choppercore" />

The Mode 2 Acheulean toolmakers also used the Mode 1 flake tool method but supplemented it by using bone, antler, or wood to shape stone tools. This type of hammer, compared to stone, yields more control over the shape of the finished tool. Unlike the earlier Mode 1 industries, it was the core that was prized over the flakes that came from it. Another advance was that the Mode 2 tools were worked symmetrically and on both sides indicating greater care in the production of the final tool.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

Mode 3 technology emerged towards the end of Acheulean dominance and involved the [[Levallois technique]], most famously exploited by the [[Mousterian]] industry. Transitional tool forms between the two are called Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition, or MTA types. The long [[lithic blade|blades]] of the [[Upper Palaeolithic]] Mode 4 industries appeared long after the Acheulean was abandoned.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

As the period of Acheulean tool use is so vast, efforts have been made to classify various stages of it such as [[John Wymer]]'s division into Early Acheulean, Middle Acheulean, Late Middle Acheulean and Late Acheulean<ref name="wymer" /> for material from Britain. These schemes are normally regional and their dating and interpretations vary.<ref name="collins" />

In Africa, there is a distinct difference in the tools made before and after 600,000 years ago with the older group being thicker and less symmetric and the younger being more extensively trimmed.<ref name="StoutApel2014">{{cite journal |last1=Stout |first1=Dietrich |last2=Apel |first2=Jan |last3=Commander |first3=Julia |last4=Roberts |first4=Mark |title=Late Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science |date=January 2014 |volume=41 |pages=576–590 |doi=10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.001 |bibcode=2014JArSc..41..576S }}</ref>

===Manufacture===

The primary innovation associated with Acheulean [[hand-axe]]s is that the stone was worked symmetrically and on both sides. For the latter reason, handaxes are, along with [[cleaver (tool)|cleavers]], [[biface|bifacially]] worked tools that could be manufactured from the large flakes themselves or from prepared cores.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Barham |first1=Lawrence |last2=Mitchell |first2=Peter |title=The First Africans |date=2008 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-61265-4 |page=16 |edition=1st}}</ref>

Tool types found in Acheulean [[Assemblage (archaeology)|assemblage]]s include pointed, cordate, ovate, [[ficron]], and [[bout-coupé]] hand-axes (referring to the shapes of the final tool), cleavers, retouched flakes, [[Scraper (archaeology)|scraper]]s, 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 rock|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.<ref name="limestone" /> 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.<ref name="gamble2" />

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|date=August 2012}}

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|date=August 2012}}

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|date=August 2012}}
[[File:Tranchet Axehead (FindID 631102).jpg|thumb|A [[tranchet axe]]]]
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|date=August 2012}}

===Use===
[[File: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.jpg|thumb|upright|Acheulean hand-axe from Egypt. Found on a hill top plateau, 1400 feet above sea level, nine miles northwest of the city of Naqada, Egypt. Paleolithic artifact displayed in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology of London]]
[[Loren Eiseley]] calculated<ref name="eisley" /> that Acheulean tools have an average useful cutting edge of {{convert|20|cm|in|0|abbr=off|lk=on}}, making them much more efficient than the {{convert|5|cm|in|0|adj=on}} average of [[Oldowan]] tools.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

[[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|date=August 2012}}

Alternative theories include a use for ovate hand-axes as a kind of hunting [[discus]] to be hurled at prey.<ref name="discus" /> Puzzlingly, there are also examples of [[archaeological site|sites]] where hundreds of hand-axes, many impractically large and also apparently unused, have been found in close [[Archaeological association|association]] together. Sites such as [[Melka Kunture|Melka Kunturé]] in [[Ethiopia]], [[Olorgesailie]] in Kenya, [[Isimila Stone Age Site|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|date=August 2012}}

Recently, it has been suggested<ref name="social" /> 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".<ref name="White" />

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.<ref name="peacock" /> This popular sexual selection hypothesis is controversial due to the assumptions made about sexual selection among extinct organisms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nowell |first1=April |last2=Chang |first2=Melanie |title=The Case Against Sexual Selection as an Explanation of Handaxe Morphology |journal=PaleoAnthropology |date=2009 |pages=77–88 |url=https://paleoanthro.org/media/journal/content/PA20090077.pdf |access-date=20 May 2023}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ele.net/acheulean/handaxe.htm|title=The Acheulean Handaxe}}</ref>{{Additional citation needed|date=September 2017|reason= The entire section is based on unpublished information from a personal website }}

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."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Welsh |first1=Jennifer |title=Tools May Have Been First Money |url=https://www.livescience.com/18751-hand-axe-tools-money.html |work=LiveScience |date=1 March 2012 }}</ref>

===Distribution===
{{Paleolithic|lower}}
{{

Location map+|Afro-Eurasia|float=center|caption=Map of [[Afro-Eurasia]] showing important sites of the Acheulean industry (clickable map).|places=

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=40.1167|long=114.1667|position=left|label_size=75|label=[[Xiaochangliang]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=39.689167|long=115.923889|position=right|label_size=75|label=[[Zhoukoudian]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=25.717778|long=101.861111|position=left|label_size=75|label=[[Yuanmou County]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=3.947778|long=36.187222|position=left|label_size=75|label=[[Koobi Fora]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=21.124|long=-11.402|position=right|label_size=75|label=[[Richat Structure]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=-26.015656|long=27.734294|position=right|label_size=75|label=[[Sterkfontein]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=49.892|long=2.299|position=left|label_size=75|label=[[Saint-Acheul (Amiens)|Saint-Acheul]]
}}

{{
Location map~|Afro-Eurasia|lat=23.6|long=108.3|position=right|label_size=75|label=[[Bose Basin]]
}}

}}
[[Image:Biface de St Acheul MHNT.jpg|thumb|Acheulean [[Biface]] from [[Amiens|Saint Acheul]] ]]
The geographic distribution of Acheulean tools – and thus the peoples who made them – is often interpreted as being the result of [[palaeoclimatology|palaeo-climatic]] and [[ecology|ecological]] factors, such as [[glaciation]] and the [[desertification]] of the [[Sahara Desert]].<ref name="distrib" />

Acheulean stone tools have been found across the continent of Africa, save for the dense [[rainforest]] around the [[Congo River]] 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 [[Prehistoric Arabia|Arabian Peninsula]], across modern day [[Iran]]<ref name="Biglari" /> 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.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Prasad |first1=R. |title=Acheulian stone tools discovered near Chennai |url=https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/Acheulian-stone-tools-discovered-near-Chennai/article14959871.ece |work=The Hindu |date=24 March 2011 }}</ref>

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 (archaeology)|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.<ref name="Korea" /> 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.<ref name="gamble" />
[[File:Biface (trihedral) Amar Merdeg, Mehran, Ilam, Lower Paleolithic, National Museum of Iran.jpg|thumb|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|Palaeolithic|Lower Palaeolithic}}

Most notably, however, it is ''[[Homo ergaster]]'' (sometimes called early ''[[Homo erectus]]''), whose [[Assemblage (archaeology)|assemblage]]s 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|date=August 2012}}
Late Acheulean tools were still used by species derived from ''H. erectus'', including  ''[[Homo sapiens idaltu]]''  and early [[Neanderthal]]s.<ref name="humans" />

The symmetry of the hand-axes has been used to suggest that Acheulean tool users possessed the ability to use [[language]];{{citation needed|date=October 2024}} 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 [[hominine]]s.<ref name="wynne" /> 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.<ref name="noway" />

Lower Palaeolithic finds made in association with Acheulean hand-axes, such as the [[Venus of Berekhat Ram]],<ref name="ram" /> have been used to argue for [[art]]istic expression amongst the tool users. The incised [[elephant]] [[tibia]] from [[Bilzingsleben (Paleolithic site)|Bilzingsleben]]<ref name="bilz" /> in Germany, and [[ochre]] finds from [[Kapthurin]] in Kenya<ref name="kapthurin" /> and [[Duinefontein]] in [[South Africa]],<ref name="duine" /> 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''.<ref name="art" />

The kill site at [[Boxgrove]] in England is another famous Acheulean site. Up until the 1970s these kill sites, often at [[Depression (geology)|waterhole]]s 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.<ref name="hunt" />

Excavations at the [[Bnot Ya'akov Bridge]] site, located along the [[Dead Sea Transform|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.<ref>[http://archaeology.huji.ac.il/GBY/english.htm Gesher Benot Ya'aqov] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090720112257/http://archaeology.huji.ac.il/GBY/english.htm |date=2009-07-20 }}, [[Hebrew University]], Retrieved 2010-01-05.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Siegel-Itzkovich |first1=Judy |title=HU: Evidence of advanced human life half a million years earlier than previously thought |url=https://www.jpost.com/health-and-sci-tech/hu-evidence-of-advanced-human-life-half-a-million-years-earlier-than-previously-thought |work=The Jerusalem Post |date=December 22, 2009 }}</ref>

[[Azokh Cave|Azykh cave]] located in [[Azerbaijan]] is another site where Acheulean tools were found. In 1968, a lower jaw of a new type of [[Hominidae|hominid]] was discovered in the fifth layer (so-called Acheulean layer) of the cave. Specialists named this type "[[Azykhantrop]]us".<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus|last=Pavel Dolukhanov|publisher=Routledge|year=2014|isbn=9781317892229}}{{page needed|date=May 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Global Palaeoclimate of the Late Cenozoic|last=V.A. Zubakov, I.I. Borzenkova|publisher=Elsevier|year=1990|isbn=9780080868530}}{{page needed|date=May 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=A Dictionary of Archaeology|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|year=2008|isbn=9780470751961|editor-last=Ian Shaw, Robert Jameson}}{{page needed|date=May 2020}}</ref>

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]]<ref name="grotte" /> and [[Terra Amata (archaeological site)|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|date=August 2012}}

==See also==
*[[Hand axe]]
*[[Lithic reduction]]
*[[Lower Palaeolithic]]
*[[Ndutu cranium]]
*[[Oldowan]]
*[[Palaeolithic]]
*[[Stone Age]]
*[[Stone tools]]

==References==
===Citations===
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em|refs=

<ref name="barnham">{{cite journal |last1=Ashton |first1=Nick |last2=McNabb |first2=John |last3=Irving |first3=Brian |last4=Lewis |first4=Simon |last5=Parfitt |first5=Simon |title=Contemporaneity of Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at Barnham, Suffolk |journal=Antiquity |date=2 January 2015 |volume=68 |issue=260 |pages=585–589 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X00047074 |s2cid=162146330 }}</ref>

<ref name="modes">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.</ref>
<ref name="choppercore">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</ref>

<ref name="wymer">Wymer, JJ, 1968, ''Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain: as represented by the Thames Valley'', qtd in Adkins, L and R, 1998</ref>

<ref name="collins">Collins, D, 1978, ''Early Man in West Middlesex'', qtd in Adkins, L and R, 1998</ref>

<ref name="limestone">{{cite journal |last1=Paddayya |first1=K. |last2=Jhaldiyal |first2=Richa |last3=Petraglia |first3=M.D. |title=Excavation of an Acheulian workshop at Isampur, Karnataka (India) |journal=Antiquity |date=2 January 2015 |volume=74 |issue=286 |pages=751–752 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X00060269 |s2cid=162905484 }}</ref>

<ref name="gamble2">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.</ref>

<ref name="eisley">Unattributed citation in Renfrew and Bahn, 1991, p277</ref>

<ref name="discus">{{cite journal |last1=O'Brien |first1=Eileen M. |title=The Projectile Capabilities of an Acheulian Handaxe From Olorgesailie |journal=Current Anthropology |date=February 1981 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=76–79 |doi=10.1086/202607 |s2cid=144098416 }} See also [[William H. Calvin|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.</ref>

<ref name="social">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.</ref>

<ref name="White">{{cite journal |last1=White |first1=Mark J. |title=On the Significance of Acheulean Biface Variability in Southern Britain |journal=Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society |date=18 February 2014 |volume=64 |pages=15–44 |doi=10.1017/S0079497X00002164 |s2cid=129110686 }}</ref>

<ref name="peacock">{{cite journal |last1=Kohn |first1=Marek |last2=Mithen |first2=Steven |title=Handaxes: products of sexual selection? |journal=Antiquity |date=2 January 2015 |volume=73 |issue=281 |pages=518–526 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X00065078 |s2cid=162903453 }}</ref>

<ref name="distrib">{{cite journal |last1=Todd |first1=Lawrence |last2=Glantz |first2=Michelle |last3=Kappelman |first3=John |title=Chilga Kernet: an Acheulean landscape on Ethiopia's western plateau |journal=Antiquity |date=2 January 2015 |volume=76 |issue=293 |pages=611–612 |doi=10.1017/S0003598X0009089X |s2cid=162604558 }}</ref>

<ref name="Biglari">{{cite journal |last1=Biglari |first1=Fereidoun |last2=Shidrang |first2=Sonia |title=The Lower Paleolithic Occupation of Iran |journal=Near Eastern Archaeology |date=September 2006 |volume=69 |issue=3–4 |pages=160–168 |doi=10.1086/NEA25067668 |s2cid=166438498 }}</ref>

<ref name="Korea">Hyeong Woo Lee, ''The Palaeolithic industries of Korea: chronology and related new findspots'' in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001</ref>

<ref name="gamble">Gamble, C and Marshall, G, ''The shape of handaxes, the structure of the Acheulian world'', in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001</ref>

<ref name="humans">{{cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=J. Desmond |last2=Beyene |first2=Yonas |last3=WoldeGabriel |first3=Giday |last4=Hart |first4=William K. |last5=Renne |first5=Paul R. |last6=Gilbert |first6=Henry |last7=Defleur |first7=Alban |last8=Suwa |first8=Gen |last9=Katoh |first9=Shigehiro |last10=Ludwig |first10=Kenneth R. |last11=Boisserie |first11=Jean-Renaud |last12=Asfaw |first12=Berhane |last13=White |first13=Tim D. |title=Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia |journal=Nature |date=June 2003 |volume=423 |issue=6941 |pages=747–752 |doi=10.1038/nature01670 |pmid=12802333 |bibcode=2003Natur.423..747C |s2cid=4312418 }}</ref>

<!--
<ref name="lang">{{cite journal |last1=Isaac |first1=Glynn L. |title=Stages of Cultural Elaboration in the Pleistocene: Possible Archaeological Indicators of the Development of Language Capabilities |journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |date=October 1976 |volume=280 |issue=1 Origins and E |pages=275–288 |doi=10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25494.x |bibcode=1976NYASA.280..275I |s2cid=84642536 }}</ref>
-->

<ref name="wynne">{{cite journal |last1=Wynn |first1=Thomas |title=Handaxe enigmas |journal=World Archaeology |date=June 1995 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=10–24 |doi=10.1080/00438243.1995.9980290 }}</ref>

<ref name="noway">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.</ref>

<ref name="ram">Goren-Inbar, N and Peltz, S, 1995, ''Additional remarks on the Berekhat Ram figure'', Rock Art Research 12, 131–132, qtd in Scarre, 2005</ref>

<ref name="bilz">Mania, D and Mania, U, 1988, ''Deliberate engravings on bone artefacts of Homo Erectus'', Rock Art Research 5, 919–7, qtd in Scarre, 2005</ref>

<ref name="kapthurin">{{cite journal |last1=Tryon |first1=Christian A. |last2=McBrearty |first2=Sally |title=Tephrostratigraphy and the Acheulian to Middle Stone Age transition in the Kapthurin Formation, Kenya |journal=Journal of Human Evolution |date=January 2002 |volume=42 |issue=1–2 |pages=211–235 |doi=10.1006/jhev.2001.0513 |pmid=11795975 |bibcode=2002JHumE..42..211T }}</ref>

<ref name="duine">{{cite journal |last1=Cruz-Uribe |first1=Kathryn |last2=Klein |first2=Richard G |last3=Avery |first3=Graham |last4=Avery |first4=Margaret |last5=Halkett |first5=David |last6=Hart |first6=Timothy |last7=Milo |first7=Richard G |last8=Garth Sampson |first8=C |last9=Volman |first9=Thomas P |title=Excavation of buried Late Acheulean (Mid-Quaternary) land surfaces at Duinefontein 2, Western Cape Province, South Africa |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science |date=1 May 2003 |volume=30 |issue=5 |pages=559–575 |doi=10.1016/S0305-4403(02)00202-9 |bibcode=2003JArSc..30..559C }}</ref>

<ref name="art">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".</ref>

<ref name="hunt">''...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.</ref>

<ref name="grotte">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</ref>

}}

===Sources===
{{refbegin}}
*{{cite book
 | first = L
 | last = Adkins
 |author2= and R
 | year = 1998
 | title = The Handbook of British Archaeology
 | publisher = Constable
 | location = London
 | isbn = 978-0-09-478330-0
}}

*{{cite book
 | first = C
 | last = Butler
 | year = 2005
 | title = Prehistoric Flintwork
 | publisher = Tempus, Stroud
 | isbn = 978-0-7524-3340-0 
}}

*{{cite book
 | editor1 = Milliken, S
 | editor2= Cook, J
 | year = 2001
 | title = A Very Remote Period Indeed. Papers on the Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe
 | publisher = Oxbow
 | location = Oxford
 | isbn = 978-1-84217-056-4
}}

*{{cite book
 | first = C
 | last = Renfrew
 | author-link = Colin Renfrew
 |author2= and P Bahn
 | year = 1991
 | title = Archaeology, Theories Methods and Practice
 | publisher = Thames and Hudson
 | location = London
 | isbn = 978-0-500-27605-1
}}

*{{cite book
 | editor-first = C
 | editor-last = Scarre
 | year = 2005
 | title = The Human Past
 | publisher = Thames and Hudson
 | location = London
 | isbn = 978-0-500-28531-2
}}

*{{cite book
 | first = B
 | last = Wood
 | year = 2005
 | title = Human Evolution A Very Short Introduction
 | publisher = Oxford University Press
 | location = Oxford
 | isbn = 978-0-19-280360-3
}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
*{{commons category-inline}}
*{{wiktionary inline|Acheulean}}

{{Ancient Mesopotamia}}
{{Prehistoric technology|state=expanded}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Acheulean| ]]
[[Category:Lower Paleolithic]]
[[Category:Industries (archaeology)]]
[[Category:Paleolithic cultures of Africa]]
[[Category:Paleolithic cultures of Asia]]
[[Category:Paleolithic cultures of Europe]]