\n\
\ \';
// var pos = getPosition(document.getElementById("RightPane"));
window.scrollTo(0,300);
var wait_display = "
";
document.getElementById("RightPane").innerHTML = wait_display;
var xhttp = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhttp.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (this.readyState == 4 && this.status == 200) {
/*
var res = evalJSFromHtml(ad);
*/
document.getElementById("RightPane").innerHTML = this.responseText;
/*
evalJSFromHtml(ad);
*/
}
};
var all = "../php/data_get.php?Topic=" + Topic + "&Type=button.list.summary";
xhttp.open("GET", all, true);
xhttp.send();
}
Contents
1 History of research
2 Dating the Acheulean
3
Acheulean
Acheulean stone tools
3.1 Stages 3.2 Manufacture 3.3 Use
3.3.1
Hand-axe
Hand-axe as a left over core
3.3.2 Money
3.4 Distribution
4
Acheulean
Acheulean tool users
5 See also
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links
History of research[edit]
The type site for the
Acheulean
Acheulean is Saint-Acheul, a suburb of Amiens,
the capital of the Somme department in Picardy, where artifacts were
found in 1859.[6]
John Frere
John Frere is generally credited as being the first to suggest a very
ancient date for
Acheulean
Acheulean hand-axes. In 1797, he sent two examples to
the
Royal Academy
Royal Academy in London from
Hoxne
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".[7] His ideas were, however, ignored by his
contemporaries, who subscribed to a pre-Darwinian view of human
evolution.[citation needed]
Later, Jacques Boucher de Crèvecœur de Perthes, working between 1836
and 1846, collected further examples of hand-axes and fossilised
animal bone from the gravel river terraces of the Somme near Abbeville
in northern France. Again, his theories attributing great antiquity to
the finds were spurned by his colleagues, until one of de Perthe's
main opponents, Dr Marcel Jérôme Rigollot, began finding more tools
near Saint Acheul. Following visits to both
Abbeville
Abbeville and Saint Acheul
by the geologist Joseph Prestwich, the age of the tools was finally
accepted.[citation needed]
In 1872,
Louis Laurent Gabriel de Mortillet
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
Acheulean in 1925.[citation needed]
Dating the Acheulean[edit]
An
Acheulean
Acheulean handaxe, Haute-Garonne France – MHNT
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 Konso
Formation of Ethiopia,
Acheulean
Acheulean hand-axes are dated to about
1.5 million years ago using radiometric dating of deposits
containing volcanic ashes.[8]
Acheulean
Acheulean tools in South Asia have also
been found to be dated as far as 1.5 million years ago.[9]
However, the earliest accepted examples of the
Acheulean
Acheulean currently
known come from the
West Turkana
West Turkana region of
Kenya
Kenya and were first
described by a French-led archaeology team.[10] These particular
Acheulean
Acheulean tools were recently dated through the method of
magnetostratigraphy to about 1.76 million years ago, making them
the oldest not only in Africa but the world.[11] The earliest user of
Acheulean
Acheulean tools was
Homo
Homo ergaster, who first appeared about
1.8 million years ago. Not all researchers use this formal name,
and instead prefer to call these users early
Homo
Homo erectus.[5]
From geological dating of sedimentary deposits, it appears that the
Acheulean
Acheulean originated in Africa and spread to Asian, Middle Eastern,
and European areas sometime between 1.5 million years ago and
about 800 thousand years ago.[12][13] In individual regions, this
dating can be considerably refined; in Europe for example, it was
thought that
Acheulean
Acheulean methods did not reach the continent until
around 500,000 years ago. However more recent research demonstrated
that hand-axes from Spain were made more than 900,000 years ago.[13]
Relative dating techniques (based on a presumption that technology
progresses over time) suggest that
Acheulean
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
Acheulean tool-using groups were
contemporary with other, less sophisticated industries such as the
Clactonian[14] and then later with the more sophisticated Mousterian,
as well. It is therefore important not to see the
Acheulean
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
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]
The very earliest
Acheulean
Acheulean assemblages often contain numerous
Oldowan-style flakes and core forms and it is almost certain that the
Acheulean
Acheulean developed from this older industry. These industries are
known as the Developed
Oldowan
Oldowan and are almost certainly transitional
between the
Oldowan
Oldowan and Acheulean.[citation needed]
Acheulean
Acheulean stone tools[edit]
Stages[edit]
In the four divisions of prehistoric stone-working,[15] Acheulean
artefacts are classified as Mode 2, meaning they are more advanced
than the (usually earlier) Mode 1 tools of the
Clactonian
Clactonian or
Oldowan/
Abbevillian
Abbevillian industries but lacking the sophistication of the
(usually later) Mode 3 Middle
Palaeolithic
Palaeolithic technology, exemplified by
the
Mousterian
Mousterian industry.[citation needed]
The Mode 1 industries created rough flake tools 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 core) to create
chopper cores although there is some debate over whether these items
were tools or just discarded cores.[16]
The Mode 2
Acheulean
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]
Mode 3 technology emerged towards the end of
Acheulean
Acheulean dominance and
involved the Levallois technique, most famously exploited by the
Mousterian
Mousterian industry. Transitional tool forms between the two are
called
Mousterian
Mousterian of
Acheulean
Acheulean Tradition, or MTA types. The long
blades of the
Upper Palaeolithic
Upper Palaeolithic Mode 4 industries appeared long after
the
Acheulean
Acheulean was abandoned.[citation needed]
As the period of
Acheulean
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
Acheulean and Late
Acheulean[17] for material from Britain. These schemes are normally
regional and their dating and interpretations vary.[18]
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.[19]
Manufacture[edit]
The primary innovation associated with
Acheulean
Acheulean hand-axes is that the
stone was worked symmetrically and on both sides. For the latter
reason, handaxes are, along with cleavers, bifacially worked tools
that could be manufactured from the large flakes themselves or from
prepared cores.[20]
Tool types found in
Acheulean
Acheulean assemblages include pointed, cordate,
ovate, ficron, and bout-coupé hand-axes (referring to the shapes of
the final tool), cleavers, retouched flakes, scrapers, 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 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.[21] In all cases the toolmakers worked
their handaxes close to the source of their raw materials, suggesting
that the
Acheulean
Acheulean was a set of skills passed between individual
groups.[22]
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
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]
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]
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]
Final shaping was then applied to the usable cutting edge of the tool,
again using fine removal of flakes. Some
Acheulean
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
Acheulean sites.[citation needed]
Use[edit]
Acheulean
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
Loren Eiseley
Loren Eiseley calculated[23] that
Acheulean
Acheulean tools have an average
useful cutting edge of 20 centimetres (8 inches), making them much
more efficient than the 5-centimetre (2 in) average of Oldowan
tools.[citation needed]
Use-wear analysis
Use-wear analysis on
Acheulean
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]
Alternative theories include a use for ovate hand-axes as a kind of
hunting discus to be hurled at prey.[24] Puzzlingly, there are also
examples of sites where hundreds of hand-axes, many impractically
large and also apparently unused, have been found in close association
together. Sites such as Melka Kunturé in Ethiopia,
Olorgesailie
Olorgesailie in
Kenya, Isimila in Tanzania, and
Kalambo Falls
Kalambo Falls in
Zambia
Zambia have produced
evidence that suggests
Acheulean
Acheulean hand-axes might not always have had a
functional purpose.[citation needed]
Recently, it has been suggested[25] that the
Acheulean
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".[26]
One theory goes further and suggests that some special hand-axes were
made and displayed by males in search of 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.[27]
Hand-axe
Hand-axe as a left over core[edit]
Stone knapping with limited digital dexterity makes the center of
gravity 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.[28][additional citation(s) needed]
Money[edit]
Mimi Lam, a researcher from the University of British Columbia, has
suggested that
Acheulean
Acheulean hand-axes became "the first commodity: A
marketable good or service that has value and is used as an item for
exchange."[29]
Distribution[edit]
Xiaochangliang
Zhoukoudian
Yuanmou County
Koobi Fora
Sterkfontein
Saint-Acheul
Bose Basin
Map of
Afro-Eurasia
Afro-Eurasia showing important sites of the
Acheulean
Acheulean industry
(clickable map).
The geographic distribution of
Acheulean
Acheulean tools – and thus the
peoples who made them – is often interpreted as being the result of
palaeo-climatic and ecological factors, such as glaciation and the
desertification of the Sahara Desert.[30]
Acheulean
Acheulean
Biface
Biface from Saint Acheul
Acheulean
Acheulean stone tools have been found across the continent of Africa,
save for the dense rainforest around the
River Congo
River Congo 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 Arabian Peninsula, across modern day Iran[31]
and Pakistan, and into India, and beyond. In Europe their users
reached the
Pannonian Basin
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
Chennai in
Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu the
Acheulean
Acheulean age started at 1.51 mya and it is also prior
than
North India
North India and Europe.[32]
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 tools instead. An apparent division between
Acheulean
Acheulean and
non-
Acheulean
Acheulean tool industries was identified by Hallam L. Movius, who
drew the
Movius Line
Movius Line across northern India to show where the
traditions seemed to diverge. Later finds of
Acheulean
Acheulean tools at
Chongokni in
South Korea
South Korea and also in
Mongolia
Mongolia and China, however, cast
doubt on the reliability of Movius's distinction.[33] Since then, a
different division known as the
Roe Line
Roe Line has been suggested. This runs
across North Africa to
Israel
Israel and thence to India, separating two
different techniques used by
Acheulean
Acheulean toolmakers. North and east of
the Roe Line,
Acheulean
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.[34]
Biface
Biface (trihedral) Amar Merdeg, Mehran, National Museum of Iran
Acheulean
Acheulean tool users[edit]
For further details of the known environment and people during the
time when
Acheulean
Acheulean tools were being made, see
Palaeolithic
Palaeolithic and Lower
Palaeolithic.
Acheulean
Acheulean tools were not made by fully modern humans – that is, Homo
sapiens – although the early or non-modern (transitional) Homo
sapiens idaltu did use Late
Acheulean
Acheulean tools, as did the
proto-
Neanderthal
Neanderthal species.[35] Most notably, however, it is Homo
ergaster (sometimes called early
Homo
Homo erectus), whose assemblages are
almost exclusively Acheulean, who used the technique. Later, the
related species
Homo
Homo heidelbergensis (the common ancestor of both
Neanderthals and
Homo
Homo sapiens) used it extensively.[citation needed]
The symmetry of the hand-axes has been used to suggest that Acheulean
tool users possessed the ability to use language;[36] 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 hominines.[37] 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.[38]
Lower Palaeolithic
Lower Palaeolithic finds made in association with
Acheulean
Acheulean hand-axes,
such as the Venus of Berekhat Ram,[39] have been used to argue for
artistic expression amongst the tool users. The incised elephant tibia
from Bilzingsleben[40] in Germany, and ochre finds from
Kapthurin in
Kenya[41] and
Duinefontein in South Africa,[42] 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; and there is no unequivocal
evidence of human art until around 50,000 years ago, after the
emergence of modern
Homo
Homo sapiens.[43]
The kill site at
Boxgrove
Boxgrove in England is another famous
Acheulean
Acheulean site.
Up until the 1970s these kill sites, often at waterholes where animals
would gather to drink, were interpreted as being where
Acheulean
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.[44]
Excavations at the
Bnot Ya'akov Bridge
Bnot Ya'akov Bridge site, located along the Dead
Sea rift in the southern
Hula Valley
Hula Valley of northern Israel, have revealed
evidence of human habitation in the area from as early as 750,000
years ago.[45] Archaeologists from the
Hebrew University
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
Acheulean layer at the site in which numerous
stone tools, animal bones, and plant remains have been found.[46]
Only limited artefactual evidence survives of the users of Acheulean
tools other than the stone tools themselves.
Cave
Cave sites were exploited
for habitation, but the hunter-gatherers of the
Palaeolithic
Palaeolithic also
possibly built shelters such as those identified in connection with
Acheulean
Acheulean tools at Grotte du Lazaret[47] and Terra Amata near
Nice
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
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]
See also[edit]
Oldowan Lithic reduction Lower Palaeolithic Palaeolithic Stone Age Stone tools Ndutu cranium
References[edit]
^ Hadfield, Peter, Gimme Shelter(subscription site)
^ "BBC News SCI/TECH Earliest evidence of art found".
news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-12-18.
^ Bar-Yosef, O and Belfer-Cohen, A, 2001, From Africa to
Eurasia
Eurasia —
Early Dispersals, Quaternary International 75, 19–28, Abstract
^ Ian Tattersall, Masters of the Planet, the search for our human
origins, 2012, Palgrave Macmillan, chapter 6, pp. 124–125,
ISBN 978-0-230-10875-2
^ a b Wood, B, 2005, p87.
^ Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed. (1989)
^ Frere, John. "Account of
Flint
Flint Weapons Discovered at
Hoxne
Hoxne in
Suffolk.". Archaeologia 13 (1800): 204-205 [reprinted in Grayson
(1983), 55-56, and Heizer (1962), 70-71].
^ (Asfaw, B. et al. The earliest
Acheulean
Acheulean from Konso-Gardula. Nature
360, 732–735, 1992,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6406/abs/360732a0.html)
^ Pappu, Shanti (2011-03-25). "Early Pleistocene Presence of Acheulian
Hominins in South India Science". Sciencemag.org. Retrieved
2016-12-01.
^ (Roche, H. et al. Les sites arche´ologiques plio-ple´istoce`nes de
la formation de Nachukui, Ouest-Turkana, Kenya: bilan synthe´tique
1997–2001. C. R. Palevol 2, 663–673, 2003,
http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/16310683/v02i0008/663_lsapdlnokbs1.xml)
^ (Lepre, C. J., Roche, H., Kent, D. V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R. L.,
Brugal, J.-P., Texier, P.-J., Lenoble, A., & Feibel, C. S. (2011).
An earlier origin for the Acheulian. Nature, 477, 82–85,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7362/abs/nature10372.html)
^ Goren-Inbar, N.; Feibel, C. S.; Verosub, K. L.; Melamed, Y.; Kislev,
M. E.; Tchernov, E.; Saragusti, I. (2000). "Pleistocene Milestones on
the Out-of-Africa Corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel". Science.
289 (5481): 944–947. doi:10.1126/science.289.5481.944.
PMID 10937996.
^ a b Scott, G. R.; Gibert, L. (2009). "The oldest hand-axes in
Europe". Nature. 461 (7260): 82–85. doi:10.1038/nature08214.
PMID 19727198.
^ Ashton, N, McNabb, J, Irving, B, Lewis, S and Parfitt, S
Contemporaneity of
Clactonian
Clactonian and Acheulian flint industries at
Barnham,
Suffolk
Suffolk Antiquity 68, 260, p585–589 Abstract
^ Barton, RNE,
Stone Age
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.
^ 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
^ Wymer, JJ, 1968,
Lower Palaeolithic
Lower Palaeolithic Archaeology in Britain: as
represented by the Thames Valley, qtd in Adkins, L and R, 1998
^ Collins, D, 1978, Early Man in West Middlesex, qtd in Adkins, L and
R, 1998
^ Stout, Dietrich; Apel, Jan; Commander, Julia; Roberts, Mark (2014).
"Late
Acheulean
Acheulean technology and cognition at Boxgrove, UK" (PDF).
Journal of Archaeological Science. 41: 576–590.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.001. ISSN 0305-4403.
^ Barham, Lawrence; Mitchell, Peter (2008). The First Africans (1st
ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 16.
ISBN 978-0-521-61265-4.
^ Paddayya, K, Jhaldiyal, R and Petraglia, MD, Excavation of an
Acheulian workshop at Isampur,
Karnataka
Karnataka (India) Antiquity 74, 286, pp
751–752 Abstract
^ 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.
^ Unattributed citation in Renfrew and Bahn, 1991, p277
^ O'Brien, E, 1981, The projectile capabilities of an Acheulian
handaxe from Olorgesailie, Current Anthropology 22: 76–9. See also
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.
^ Gamble, C, 1997, Handaxes and palaeolithic individuals, in N.
Ashton, F. Healey & P.Pettitt (ed.),
Stone Age
Stone Age archaeology:
105–9. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Monograph 102.
^ White, MJ, 1998, On the significance of Acheulian biface variability
in southern Britain, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64:
15–44.
^ Kohn, M and Mithen, S, 1999, Handaxes: products of sexual
selection?, Antiquity 73, 518–26 Abstract
^ "The
Acheulean
Acheulean Handaxe".
^ Welsh, Jennifer (2012-02-29). "Tools May Have Been First Money".
Livescience.com. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
^ Todd, L, Glantz, M and Kappelman, J, Chilga Kernet: an Acheulean
landscape on Ethiopia's western plateau Antiquity 76, 293 pp 611–612
Abstract
^ Biglari, F. and Shidrang, S. 2006 The
Lower Paleolithic
Lower Paleolithic Occupation
of Iran, Near Eastern Archaeology 69(3–4): 160-168 [1]
^ "Archive News". The Hindu. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
^ Hyeong Woo Lee, The
Palaeolithic
Palaeolithic industries of Korea: chronology and
related new findspots in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001
^ Gamble, C and Marshall, G, The shape of handaxes, the structure of
the Acheulian world, in Milliken, S and Cook, J (eds), 2001
^ Clarke, JD et al., 2003, Stratigraphic, chronological and
behavioural contexts of Pleistocene
Homo
Homo sapiens from Middle Awash,
Ethiopia, Nature 423, 747–52, Abstract
^ Isaac, GL, 1976, Stages of cultural elaboration in the Pleistocene:
possible archaeological indicators of the development of language
capabilities, in Origins and Evolution of Languages and Speech (SR
Harbard et al. eds.), 276–88, Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences 280, qtd in Renfrew and Bahn, 1991
^ Wynn, T, 1995, Handaxe enigmas, World Archaeology 27, 10–24, qtd
in Scarre, 2005
^ 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.
^ Goren-Inbar, N and Peltz, S, 1995, Additional remarks on the
Berekhat Ram figure, Rock
Art
Art Research 12, 131–132, qtd in Scarre,
2005
^ Mania, D and Mania, U, 1988, Deliberate engravings on bone artefacts
of
Homo
Homo Erectus, Rock
Art
Art Research 5, 919–7, qtd in Scarre, 2005
^ Tryon, CA and McBrearty, S, 2002, Tephrostatigraphy and the
Acheulean
Acheulean to Middle
Stone Age
Stone Age transition in the
Kapthurin Formation,
Kenya, Journal of Human Evolution 42, 211–35, qtd in Scarre, 2005
Abstract
^ Cruz-Uribe, K et al., 2003, Excavation of buried late Acheulean
(mid-Quaternary) land surfaces at
Duinefontein 2, West Cape Province,
South Africa, Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 559–75, qtd in
Scarre, 2005
^ 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.
^ ...the most conservative conclusion today is that
Acheulean
Acheulean people
and their contemporaries definitely hunted big animals, though their
success rate is not clear ibid, p 120.
^ Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Hebrew University, Retrieved 2010-01-05.
^ Evidence of advanced human life half a million years earlier than
previously thought[permanent dead link] (Dec 22, 2009) in The
Jerusalem Post Retrieved 2010-01-05.
^ 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
Bibliography[edit]
Adkins, L; and R (1998). The Handbook of British Archaeology. London: Constable. ISBN 0-09-478330-6.
Butler, C (2005). Prehistoric Flintwork. Tempus, Stroud. ISBN 0-7524-3340-7.
Milliken, S; and J Cook (eds) (2001). A Very Remote Period Indeed.
Papers on the
Palaeolithic
Palaeolithic presented to Derek Roe. Oxford: Oxbow.
ISBN 1-84217-056-2. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list
(link)
Renfrew, C; and P Bahn (1991). Archaeology, Theories Methods and Practice. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-27605-6.
Scarre, C (ed.) (2005). The Human Past. London: Thames and Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28531-4. CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)
Wood, B (2005). Human Evolution A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280360-3.
External links[edit]
Look up
Acheulean
Acheulean in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Media related to
Acheulean
Acheulean at Wikimedia Commons
v t e
Ancient Mesopotamia
Geography
Modern
Euphrates Upper Mesopotamia Mesopotamian Marshes Persian Gulf Syrian Desert Taurus Mountains Tigris Zagros Mountains
Ancient
Akkad Assyria Babylonia Chaldea Elam Hittites Media Mitanni Sumer Urartu Cities
History
Pre- / Protohistory
Acheulean
Mousterian
Trialetian
Zarzian
Natufian
Nemrikian
Khiamian
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB)
Hassuna/Samarra
Halaf
Ubaid
Uruk
Jemdet Nasr
Kish civilization
History
Early Dynastic Akkadian Ur III Old Babylonian Kassite Neo-Assyrian Neo-Babylonian Achaemenid Seleucid Parthian Roman Sasanian Muslim conquest Timeline of the Assyrian Empire
Languages
Akkadian Amorite Aramaic Eblaite Elamite Gutian Hittite Hurrian Luwian Middle Persian Old Persian Parthian Proto-Armenian Sumerian Urartian
Culture
Culture / Society
Architecture
Art
Cuneiform script
Akkadian
Akkadian literature
Sumerian literature
Music
Religion
Archaeology
Looting Destruction by ISIL Tell
Portal
v t e
Prehistoric technology
Prehistory
timeline outline Stone Age subdivisions New Stone Age
Technology
history
Tools
Farming
Neolithic
Neolithic Revolution
founder crops New World crops
Ard / plough Celt Digging stick Domestication Goad Irrigation Secondary products Sickle Terracing
Food processing
Fire Basket Cooking
Earth oven
Granaries Grinding slab Ground stone Hearth
Aşıklı Höyük Qesem Cave
Manos Metate Mortar and pestle Pottery Quern-stone Storage pit
Hunting
Arrow Boomerang
throwing stick
Bow and arrow
history
Nets Spear
Spear-thrower baton harpoon woomera Schöningen Spears
Projectile points
Arrowhead Bare Island Cascade Clovis Cresswell Cumberland Eden Folsom Lamoka Manis Site Plano Transverse arrowhead
Systems
Game drive system
Buffalo jump
Toolmaking
Earliest toolmaking
Oldowan Acheulean Mousterian
Clovis culture
Cupstone
Fire
Fire hardening
Gravettian
Gravettian culture
Hafting
Hand axe
Grooves
Langdale axe industry Levallois technique Lithic core Lithic reduction
analysis debitage flake
Lithic technology
Magdalenian
Magdalenian culture
Metallurgy
Microblade technology
Mining
Prepared-core technique
Solutrean
Solutrean industry
Striking platform
Tool stone
Uniface
Yubetsu technique
Other tools
Adze Awl
bone
Axe Bannerstone Blade
prismatic
Bone tool Bow drill Burin Canoe
Oar Pesse canoe
Chopper
tool
Cleaver
Denticulate tool
Fire
Fire plough
Fire-saw
Hammerstone
Knife
Microlith
Quern-stone
Racloir
Rope
Scraper
side
Stone tool Tally stick Weapons Wheel
illustration
Architecture
Ceremonial
Göbekli Tepe Kiva Standing stones
megalith row Stonehenge
Pyramid
Dwellings
Neolithic
Neolithic architecture
British megalith architecture
Nordic megalith architecture
Burdei
Cave
Cliff dwelling
Dugout
Hut
Quiggly hole
Jacal Longhouse Mud brick
Mehrgarh
Neolithic
Neolithic long house
Pit-house
Pueblitos
Pueblo
Rock shelter
Blombos Cave Abri de la Madeleine Sibudu Cave
Stone roof Roundhouse Stilt house
Alp pile dwellings
Wattle and daub
Water management
Check dam Cistern Flush toilet Reservoir Water well
Other architecture
Archaeological features Broch Burnt mound
fulacht fiadh
Causewayed enclosure
Tor enclosure
Circular enclosure
Goseck
Cursus Henge
Thornborough
Oldest buildings Megalithic architectural elements Midden Timber circle Timber trackway
Sweet Track
Arts and culture
Material goods
Baskets Beadwork Beds Chalcolithic Clothing/textiles
timeline
Cosmetics Glue Hides
shoes Ötzi
Jewelry
amber use
Mirrors Pottery
Cardium Grooved ware Linear Jōmon Unstan ware
Sewing needle Weaving Wine
Winery wine press
PrehistArt
Art
Art of the Upper Paleolithic
Art
Art of the Middle Paleolithic
Blombos Cave
List of
Stone Age
Stone Age art
Bird stone
Bradshaw rock paintings
Cairn
Carved Stone Balls
Cave
Cave paintings
painting pigment
Cup and ring mark Geoglyph Golden hats Guardian stones Megalithic art Petroform Petroglyph Petrosomatoglyph Pictogram Rock art
Stone carving
Sculpture Statue menhir Stone circle
list British Isles and Brittany
Venus figurines
Burial
Burial mounds
Bowl barrow Round barrow
Mound Builders
Mound Builders culture
U.S. sites
Chamber tomb
Severn-Cotswold
Cist
Dartmoor kistvaens
Clava cairn Court tomb Cremation Dolmen
Great dolmen
Funeral pyre Gallery grave
transepted wedge-shaped
Grave goods Jar burial Long barrow
unchambered Grønsalen
Megalithic tomb Mummy Passage grave Rectangular dolmen Ring cairn Simple dolmen Stone box grave Tor cairn Tumulus Unchambered long cairn
Other cultural
Astronomy
sites lunar calendar
Behavioral modernity Origin of language
trepanning
Prehistoric medicine Evolutionary musicology
music archaeology
Prehistoric music
Alligator drum flutes Divje Babe flute gudi
Prehistoric numerals Origin of religion
Paleolithic
Paleolithic religion
Prehistoric religion
Spiritual drug use
Prehistoric warfare Symbols