On Friday, July 26, 2013 at 12:08:14 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:

The function of hand axes: Puzzle solved

Go to end of this post and look for the phrase: "HERE IS THE ANSWER"

*********************** BEGINNING OF NOTES *****************

The Acheulians or Early Stone Age humans took great
care in the shaping of stones, especially in the manufacture
of almond-shaped hand-axes.

The axes are difficult to make, requiring
that great strength and precision be maintained over thirty to
a hundred and fifty procedures

In South Africa they are
common, and there is one desolate field in the Kalahari
where billions of hand-axes and other stone tools lie in a
layer a metre deep, extending to the horizon . . . "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/early-humans-large-carnivore_n_1453780.html?ref=science

Werdelin’s theory: the species that went extinct were specifically those species that were in direct competition with the hominins or that were threats to them—namely, omnivores with diets similar to that of the hominins and hypercarnivores with a

narrow range of prey.

Such continuity over time and space speaks to us of use, success, and reuse - a design integral to some task, a task appropriate or essential to diverse environments.

which task (or tasks) the hand axe performed is still being debated.

most are six or seven inches long.

a sharp edge around all or most of its perimeter.

there is no evidence that it was hefted until much later in time, not until after the evolution of Homo sapiens.

Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ, is that the hand axe acted as a stationary tool,

Homo erectus possessed other tools suitable for these purposes - tools that precede and continue alongside the hand axe in the archeological record. Compared with these, the hand axe was costly to produce in terms of time, labor, and skill, and

required larger blocks of fine-grained, faultless stone such as flint or basalt.

the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much damage on the user as on the material being worked.

hey would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it

Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record.

hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed.

This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency.

owing to its weight and the ovate, broad point, the experimental hand axe was difficult to grasp and throw overhand. George Peredy,

The hand axe may be proof that this behavioral strategy was refined long ago, at a time when truly "giants strode the earth" - when by dint of size the megamammals of the Pleistocene asserted their dominance, when migrating game might pass in a

continuous parade for days without a break in their ranks,

They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production

of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside
what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited
about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed.

***************************************************************

The Hand Axe -

A Million Years of Use

What Was the Acheulean Hand Axe?

by Eileen M. O'Brien

About one and one-half million years ago, a new type of large, symmetrically shaped stone implement entered the prehistoric tool kit, signaling both an advance in craftsmanship and the advent of Homo erectus, a small-brained but otherwise fairly

recognizable form of human being. The tool was the hand axe, which these ancestral humans faithfully made for well over one million years. Named for archeological finds at Saint Acheul, France examples of the Acheulean hand axe are found from the Vaal
River of South Africa to the lakes, bogs, and rivers of Europe, from the shores of the Mediterranean to India and Indonesia. Such continuity over time and space speaks to us of use, success, and reuse - a design integral to some task, a task appropriate
or essential to diverse environments.

Homo erectus needed tools: tools to cut, slice, and chop, to dig, pound, and grind; tools to defend against predators and competitors, to procure and process food or other materials, even tools to make tools. But which task (or tasks) the hand axe

performed is still being debated.

The average hand axe looks like a giant stone almond, although some are more ovate and others more triangular. Crafted from a stone core or Rake, it can range in size from only a few inches to a foot or more, but most are six or seven inches long.

Whether roughly finished or as relined as a work of art, the hand axe always has an eccentric center of gravity and a sharp edge around all or most of its perimeter. Thus in cross section lengthwise, it resembles a stretched-out teardrop.

Some have speculated that the hand axe's design was not functional but purely aesthetic or that it was a byproduct of the manufacture of the sharp Rakes used in butchering. Most anthropologists, however, assume it was a practical implement. Initially,

prehistorians thought it was a hefted, multipurpose tool and weapon like the stone hatchet, or axe, of the aboriginal Americans and Australians. But there is no evidence that it was hefted until much later in time, not until after the evolution of Homo
sapiens. Another proposal, advanced to explain why excavators find some hand axes standing on edge, in situ, is that the hand axe acted as a stationary tool, one edge embedded in the earth while the exposed edge cut or scraped an object passed over it.
But the common and traditional interpretation is that it was a hand-held tool for butchering, cutting, scraping, digging, or as its name implies, chopping.

Experiments show that these important tasks can be accomplished with a hand axe. But Homo erectus possessed other tools suitable for these purposes - tools that precede and continue alongside the hand axe in the archeological record. Compared with

these, the hand axe was costly to produce in terms of time, labor, and skill, and required larger blocks of fine-grained, faultless stone such as flint or basalt. The hand axe also presented a hazard. Since a heavy object requires effort to wield and
carry, we may assume the mass of the hand axe was important to its function. Force in the form of increased momentum would be useful for chopping, for example, as compared with a task like scraping, where the user exerts all the energy in the form of
pressure. But without a safe handhold, the sharp edge of the hand axe, when used with force, was (and is) capable of inflicting as much damage on the user as on the material being worked.

Whatever its function, the hand axe represented to its users not only an investment of energy but also a source of raw material. They would have saved and reused a hand axe for as long as possible and retouched it when necessary. With time and repeated

repair, it would have become smaller; once irreparably damaged, what remained could then have served as a core in the production of still smaller stone tools. Accordingly, except for those hand axes that were misplaced or lost, the hand axe should not be
in the archeological record. Excavators, however, recover hand axes in abundance, mostly at sites that are within or alongside what were once (and may still be) watercourses or wetland environments. For example, at the Acheulean site of Olorgesailie (one
of the East African sites southwest of Nairobi, Kenya, in the Eastern Rift Valley), hundreds of large hand axes were deposited about four hundred thousand years ago in what appears to have been a shallow stream bed. Elsewhere across the landscape, hand
axes are rare, although they are occasionally found in some numbers m prehistoric cave sites. This suggests that during some activity that took place near water, hand axes were used and lost with astonishing frequency.

If we let the evidence speak for itself, the appropriate question is: What task would require force, call for a tool with a sharp edge around all (or most) of its perimeter but without a safe handhold, occur in or near water, and often result in the

loss of a potentially reusable and valuable artifact? The possibility that occurred to me is that the hand axe was a projectile weapon. The idea, I have since discovered, has been thought of before, but not pursued. Use of the hand axe as a weapon has
been suggested since at least the sixteenth century, and small hand axes have been proposed as projectiles since the nineteenth century, most enjoyably by H.G. Wells in his Tales of Time and Space (1899). More recently, M.D.W. Jeffreys, a South African
anthropologist, wrote that the small- to medium-sized Vaal River hand axes would make good bird hunting weapons if thrown overhand, like a knife ("The Handbolt." Man, 1965). But the idea that hand axes were in general used as projectiles has not taken
hold, probably because it is not obvious how the larger hand axes could have been thrown.

By analogy with modern forms, we understand how prehistoric stone arrowheads and spear points were propelled and used as weapons or how a stone ball ("spheroid," to archeologists) could be thrown or used in a bole (a weighted thong or cord thrown to

entangle prey). But what about the hand axe? One way might be overhand, as Jeffreys suggested. Other methods of throwing a small- to medium-sized hand axe might be the side/overhand throw used in baseball and perhaps the backhand throw used in both knife
and frisbee throwing. To throw a large, heavy hand axe, however, a sidearm or underhand throw might be preferable. A few years ago, I decided that a practical experiment was what was needed. From my limited knowledge of track and field, I thought that
for sidearm throwing, an analogy might be made between a hand axe and the Olympic discus.

Like a hand axe, the early discus of the ancient Greeks was unhafted, edged all around, and made of stone. It also varied in size from about half a foot to more than one foot in diameter, and in weight from about two and one-quarter pounds to more than

fourteen and one-half pounds. (Actually, the word discus means "a thing for throwing" or "a thing thrown"; the discus thrown by Odysseus in Homer's Odyssey, for example, is thought by some scholars to refer to a beach cobble.) Unlike a hand axe, the
classic Greek discus was perfectly round. (The modern regulation discus, which weighs 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds, is made of wood and weighted with metal around the edge to accelerate its spinning motion. The longer and faster it spins, the more stable
the flight pattern and the longer the flight, all else being equal.)

The hand axe I chose for the throwing experiment was the largest I could find in the Olorgesailie collection at the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi (I was in Africa at the time doing fieldwork unrelated to this topic). Because the original could not

be used - and raw material for making a "real" hand axe of such size was difficult to obtain - a fiberglass replica was made. The original hand axe is a little more than a foot long, ovate shaped, and edged all around. It is made of basalt and weighs
about four pounds, three ounces. J.D. Ambrosse Esa (then head of the museum's casting department) supervised the casting and the accurate weighting of the facsimile to within one and one-half ounces of the original.

The experiment took place in 1978, in the discus practice area at the University of Massachusetts, where I was then a student. Two student athletes participated: Karl Nyholm, a discus thrower, and George Peredy a javelin thrower. One day in late April,

and again two weeks later, both threw the hand axe discus-style. Peredy also threw it overhand. To maximize potential accuracy in the discus throw, the thrower did not whirl.

The first to throw the hand axe discus style was Karl Nyholm. He took the unfamiliar object in his right hand, grasping it every which way before settling on the butt. He tossed it up and down for balance and "feel," then crouched and practiced his

swing. Ready, he paced off from the release line. With his back to the field, he spread his legs apart, bent at the knees, and twisted his right arm far behind him. Then he began the throw: his outstretched left hand grasping at air, weight shifting from
right foot to left, he rotated to face the field. The burdened right hand swung wide and low and then raced upward With a great exhalation of breath, he hurled himself out straight and let go. Silently, gracefully spinning, the hand a soared.

Like a discus, the hand axe spun horizon - tally as it rose, but changed its orientation in midair. On reaching its maximum altitude, it rolled onto its edge and descended in a perpendicular position, its spinning motion appearing to decline. Then,

with thud, it landed point first, slicing deeply into the thawing earth. In both throwing; bouts, regardless of thrower, the hand a repeated this flight pattern when thrown discus-style. It landed on edge forty-two, out of forty-five throws, shiny one of
which were point first. The average throw was about one-third the length of a foot- ball field (almost 102 feet), and usually accurate to within two yards right or left of the line of trajectory.

The propensity of the hand axe to pivot onto its edge in mid-flight was unexpected and curious. But, as suggested to me by! several track coaches, it may be related to the same factors that can produce the "peel -off" pattern in a thrown discus some

function of the manner of release and the thrower's expertise. A full explanation of the physical principles involved must await an interpretation by someone with the relevant expertise What is important is that it does happen By so doing, it makes on-
edge impact of a thrown hand axe predictable. The further tendency of the hand axe to land point first does not appear accidental and adds to the implement's potential to inflict damage. If the hand axe can also be thrown so that it behaves exactly like
the discus in both ascent and descent (more recent demonstrations support this possibility), then by simply changing the angle and manner of release it should be possible to strike a target with either a horizontally or vertically directed edge.

Modern discus throwing is not known for its accuracy. But in terms of how far a hand axe might ideally be thrown, it is worth noting that the 1980 Olympic record in discus was 218.8 feet. Since the experimental hand axe weighs only two and a half

ounces less than the modern Olympic discus, this suggests that as the thrower's skill and/or strength increase, the potential flight distance of the hand axe increases.

When grasped and thrown overhand, like a knife, the experimental hand axe performed like one, rotating symmetrically on edge in both ascent and descent. The average throw was just short of discus-style, but more accurate, about half a yard right or

left of the line of trajectory. It always landed on edge, but less often point first. Unfortunately,, these results are the product of only six throws; owing to its weight and the ovate, broad point, the experimental hand axe was difficult to grasp and
throw overhand. George Peredy, who was the thrower, also appeared to tire more quickly using this method and probably could not have used it al all if he had not had large hands, in proportion to his six- foot six-inch frame. This overhand style would
probably be more suitable for lighter, more triangular hand axes. In contrast, weight and shape were of no real concern when throwing the hand axe discus-style. Even a significant increase in weight might not have impeded the throwing motion, although it
would have affected the distance of the throw.

Further testing is needed (and is currently under way), but these first trials showed that a hand axe could perform appropriately as a projectile. The hand axe demonstrated a propensity to land on edge when thrown overhand or discus-style, a tendency

to land point first, and a potential for distant and accurate impact. Its overall shape minimizes the effects of resistance while in flight, as well as at impact. This is not true of an unshaped stone or a spheroid, for example. And despite its sharp
edge, the hand axe could be launched without a safe handhold. The only apparent limitations to the hand axe's use as a projectile weapon are the strength, coordination, and skill of the thrower.

Homo erectus was bipedal, probably dexterous enough to manipulate a hand axe in either of the tested throwing styles, and very much stronger than most modern humans. With their technique perfected over years of practice and use, our ancestors probably

surpassed the accuracy shown in the experimental throws. I suspect the hand axe simply reflects a refinement in missile design, one that allowed for successful long-distance offense and defense against larger animals. This is consistent with evidence
that big-game hunting appears for the first time in the archeological record along with Homo erectus.

Perfected through trial and error, the hand axe would not necessarily have replaced preexisting projectile or handheld weapons, because weapons and strategies probably varied with the predator being deterred or the game being hunted. Hand axes would

have been especially effective in a collective strategy, such as a group of hunters bombarding a herd. To overcome any difficulty in transporting hand axes, Homo erectus could have used carrying slings made from hide, stockpiled hand axes near hunting
areas, or cached them (in caves, for example) prior to seasonal migrations.

Hunting near water, where game is relatively predictable and often concentrated, offers a simple explanation of why hand axes are recovered there in abundance -as well as the phenomenon of hand axes embedded on edge in situ. Hand axes that missed their

mark, landing in water or dense vegetation on the banks of a river, might have been difficult or impossible to retrieve. Over time, with continued exploitation of an area, projectiles would accumulate like golf balls in a water trap. Elsewhere across the
landscape, retrieval is more likely and the hand axe should be rare. This distribution pattern, as noted by English archeologist L.H. Keeley, resembles that of the Indian projectile points across the American Southwest. (Keeley, however, does not believe
that the hand axe was a projectile.)

Homo erectus, like later Homo sapiens, was physically defenseless compared with the rest of the animal kingdom. Relatively slow, without canines, claws, tusks, or other natural means of defense, these early humans were easy prey when out of a tree.

With handheld weapons they could defend themselves, once attacked. With projectile weapons they could wound, maim, or kill without making physical contact, avoiding assault or retaliation. Modern humans are notoriously expert at killing from a distance.
The hand axe may be proof that this behavioral strategy was refined long ago, at a time when truly "giants strode the earth" - when by dint of size the megamammals of the Pleistocene asserted their dominance, when migrating game might pass in a
continuous parade for days without a break in their ranks, and humankind struggled to survive, both consumer and consumed. At the other end of time, at the dawn of history, is it possible that the ancient Greeks preserved as a sport a tradition handed
down from that distant yesterday?

Eileen M. O'Brien is a research associate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Georgia. This article was first published in Natural History, July 1984.

************************************************************

On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-7, Claudius Denk wrote:

CD:

This was a battlefield. And these were battle implements strewn about as

one might find on any battlefield. This was war. And it was also

agriculture in that their enemy was not other humans but other large food-

competitor species. In those days war and agriculture (pest control) were

one and the same.

These were not hunting tools/weapons. These were battlefield

tools/weapons..

I figured it out. I now think I know exactly what these were used for. I will not explain it here but in another post. But I'll give you some hints. They were NOT projectile weapons.

Their opponents came in herds. They were thick-skinned, large herbivores

that weren't bothered much by blunt rocks--thus the reason hominids

manufactured sharp edged weapons. Their (hominids) goal was not so

much to kill them as it was to divert them. And it was a matter of life and

death for the community as a whole because if they became overrun their

garden-based food resources would be depleted and the whole community

might not survive the dry season (and it's very dramatic predatory

implications).

They had lines with a center and a left and right flank. If their lines were

breached they would fall back and re-establish a new line. It was mostly

important that they protected their core territory, which had the best

garden habitat.

Early hominids were not hunters. They were warriors/agriculturalists.

They lived in communities and protected the territory viciously, not unlike

how we do presently.

Your 'theory' is so half-witted (in every respect)

that it does not deserve a response.

CD:

Why? Because it makes sense? Because it explains the behaviors that us humans actually possess?

Nothing you state remotely begins to explain

the distinctive aspects of these fossils.

Firstly most of the 'weapons' are much too

small to have any effect when thrown at a

herbivore.

I agree. Moreover these were some pretty big beasts. And they ran in large herds. Hominids really would have had a difficult time having much effect on these beasts.

CD:

Too small? I've seen some that look like they weigh 30 lbs. These were defensive weapons. Their goal was to divert the herd. And this was a battlefield, in a strategic location. This is why they are found in such high concentration in this area.

It was a battlefield. And it was agriculture--pest control.

Surviving the dry season was their primary concern.

How do you explain the distribution of these implements? Do you have anything?

Second, why are they present in

such enormous quantities?

This is a good question. Each community must have literally had thousands of these things. And that means they served some specific purpose. And it seems reasonable to assume that this specific purpose had something to do with the large food

competitors because that purpose seems to have disappeared with the extinction of these large food competitors. So what could that specific functional purpose have been? And why did they have so many?

I know the answer.

Third, why are

nearly all of them in pristine condition?

Yes. This observation pretty much eliminates any possibility that they functioned as hand tools. Another observation that dovetails with this is the fact that they had sharp edges all the way around the circumference. If they were hand tools this

wouldn't be the case.

The mystery builds. What were these used for?

Another observation (clue) is the almond shape? Why the almond shape? What function could this possibly serve? Again, I know the answer. But I'll give you a hint: In situ these implements are often found point down, vertical--as if they were placed

there deliberately. Why is that? What functional benefit could our garden-habitat guarding earliest ancestors have gained from such. Think about it.

The correct answer makes perfect sense.

CD:

You have questions. I have answers. You have no answers.

It was a battlefield. Not a hunting field. Things get lost in battles. Things rarely get lost when hunting.

I now realize this isn't a good explanation. Things get lost in battle, but I now realize that these were not projectiles. And it's pretty absurd to suggest that so many of these would become lost in battle.

The quantity of these things is the biggest clue of all. Again, each community must have had thousands of these things.

At least, the PA people occasionally admit

that they have no explanation. (Agreed many

are pretty awful and put forward garbage

theories as nonsensical as yours)

LOL. And you think poisoning predators by putting these in fresh kills is a good explanation?

CD:

So, what is your theory? or is it a secret?

Face it Paul. You are stumped.

http://www.vera-eisenmann.com/IMG/pdf/kathu-Porat_et_al.pdf

" . . The precise mechanisms that led to the concentration of lithic

material and fauna within the vents remains unclear and neither

Beaumont (1990, 2004) nor Butzer (1984a,b) offered any explicit

explanation.

Note the above and try to have some semblance

of a scientific attitude. When you don't have

an explanation, just admit it.

I admit my original explanation had some shortcomings. But now I've solved the puzzle. Nevertheless I have the context correct. These are agricultural implements. They function is pest control of hominid garden habitat. They are not projectile weapons.

Yet these communities were in a constant state of war with inmigrating large food competitors. Surviving the dry season was the most important thing for the community as a whole.

CD:

Hominids were in a state of constant war with just about every other species, or, at least, every other species that wanted access to their garden habitat during the depths of the dry season. The tides of war can shift very dramatically and very

suddenly. What's left behind can be hard to explain. The communities that failed in this endeavor were decimated. They went extinct. This explains why these observations don't make sense.

After the extinction of a community the locality might remain uninhabitated for X number of years before it was repopulated. These observations make no sense in the context of the hunter/gatherer paradigm because the hunter/gatherer paradigm is wrong.

Hominids are communal, territorial, agricultural, warrioristic. H/G is wrong. Ecological Gatekeeper Hypothesis is right.

H/G is wrong. EGH is right. Solving this puzzle will demostrate the validity of EGH.

One last hint:
How are these large, lumbering food competitor species vulnerable. What is their achilles heel(this is almost too good of a hint)? What is their weakness. How could hominids keep these beasts out of their garden habitat? Keep in mind, if left unchecked

these animals could literally rip down every tree in their garden habitat. But they could be stopped if you know the weakness.

I left you a lot of clues, Paul. Think about it. I know you can solve the puzzle. I suggest you reread one of the papers you quoted above. Let me give you a link:
I can't find the link at the moment. But it was the one that you quoted in which the author (She had a Irish last name.) mentioned these implements being found point down in situ and she mentioned they seemed to circumvent more well watered (garden)

habitat. (This is another big clue.)

I guarantee you, Paul. That if you put some thought into this you will figure it out. I'll give you some time before I provide you the solution.

*********************** END OF NOTES *****************

HERE IS THE ANSWER:

These were fences. They were placed in the ground surrounding garden habitat. In rocky soil they were placed point up. In regular soil they were placed point down. And they took advantage of the fact that the vulnerablility of these large, lumbering

beasts was the bottom of their feet. A herd of elephant, for example, that encountered a fence-line of these objects embedded in the soil would literally be stopped. Some of them might even be crippled, attacked, and killed by hominids.

It is hard for modern humans to imagine what a genuine problem these food competitor species were for Homo Erectus. The use of these "hand axes" was a major boon to the agriculture of HE. The use of these "hand axes" as fences was a revolutionary

development that allowed HE to expand from Africa up into europe and asia.

This explanation fits *all* of the facts:
1) It explains why they produces so many of them
2) It explains why they put so much care into their design
3) It explains why they have an almond shape
4) It explains why they are often found in vertical position in situ
5) It explains why they are found encompassing what was garden habitat
6) It explains why they were sharpened all around the perimeter
7) It explains why they are found in such pristine condition (they were not tools, they were not projectiles)
8) It explains why they are found miles from where they were originally quarried (They were reused, transported from place to place. Communities might have even stolen them from each other.)

Yep.

Humane Revolution

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)