# Use-Wear Analysis Shows Changing Handaxe Grip and Use Across Time at la Noira (France)

Alice Rodriguez, Emily Coco, Marie-Hélène Moncel, Jackie Despriée, Bruce Hardy, Radu Iovita

► To cite this version:

Alice Rodriguez, Emily Coco, Marie-Hélène Moncel, Jackie Despriée, Bruce Hardy, et al.. Use-Wear Analysis Shows Changing Handaxe Grip and Use Across Time at la Noira (France). Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2025, 8, pp.32. 10.1007/s41982-025-00241-2 . hal-05343065

HAL Id: hal-05343065

https://hal.science/hal-05343065v1

Submitted on 3 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Use-Wear Analysis Shows Changing Handaxe Grip and Use Across Time at la Noira (France)

Alice Rodriguez<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID · Emily Coco<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="4" /> · Marie-Hélène Moncel<fnref n="3" /> ID · Jackie Despriée<fnref n="3" /> ID · Bruce Hardy<fnref n="5" /> · Radu Iovita<fnref n="1" /> ID

Received: 26 November 2024 / Accepted: 13 October 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

Handaxes — sub-oval bifacially flaked stone tools — were produced for over a million years across Africa, Europe, and Asia during the Lower Palaeolithic. Their relatively uniform shape across varied environments and over a million years raises the question of whether or not their function and purposes were also uniform. Previous studies suggested that handaxe shape might be related to patterns in use and maintenance, but the level of analysis may have been too coarse to tease out specific uses. This study investigates the function of handaxes from two successive Acheulean occupations at the la Noira site (France), separated by ca. 200 ka. This research aimed to find out how hominins generally used handaxes through microscopic use wear analysis. Specifically, we documented macro-wear characteristics such as type (micro-scars, edge crushing, striations, edge rounding, polish), and their relative position and distribution. We used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to translate these observations into wear location heatmaps — visual representations highlighting areas of intense or repeated use — and compared these across different occupation periods. The analysis revealed that similar handaxes were likely held in different ways and used for different tasks during the two phases of occupation at la Noira, at 700 ka and respectively 450 ka. These findings suggest a more complex scenario of handaxe use than previously understood, including changes in tool use modalities over time that reflect changes in handaxe function and hominin technical behaviors.

**Keywords** Lower Palaeolithic · Acheulean technology · Handaxes · Use-wear analysis · GIS · Ergonomics

## Introduction

The latter half of the Lower Palaeolithic (ca. 1.7 Ma–300 ka) period was marked by the widespread dispersal of hominins from Africa to diverse environments across Africa, Europe, and Asia (Antón, 2003; Bermúdez de Castro &

Martinón-Torres, 2019; Carbonell et al., 2008; Hershkovitz et al., 2018; Parfitt et al., 2010; Prat, 2018; Stringer, 2012; Wagner et al., 2011). During this period, hominins adapted to a variety of habitats, ranging from tropical forests to Mediterranean climates, then temperate regions beyond 45°N latitude. This period also saw the emergence and widespread use of "Acheulean" handaxes, tools used by hominins from approximately 1.7 million to 200,000 years ago (Carbonell et al., 1999; Parfitt et al., 2010; Schick & Toth, 1994; Shea, 2017).

Handaxes are thought to be indicative of complex cognitive processes and cultural practices among early hominins (Hodgson, 2015; Leakey & Roe, 1995; Roe, 2003; Shipton et al., 2019; Shipton & Clarkson, 2015; Shipton & White, 2020; Wynn, 1995). They represent a technological shift from simple flake production to techniques that directly shape a stone nodule, implying the imposition of a pre-determined shape onto the material (Roche, 2005; Stout, 2011; Toth & Schick, 2009). High degrees of symmetry in some handaxes have led some to argue that the ability to produce (and possibly copy) symmetrical handaxes suggests advanced cognitive capabilities among

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Alice Rodriguez
aar596@nyu.edu</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Anthrotopography Laboratory, Center for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York University, New York, NY, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ UMR 7194-CNRS-MNHN, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and the Evolution of Human Behavior (ICArEHB), Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Olof Palme House, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USA</footnote>
hominins (Goren-Inbar, 2011; Gowlett, 1986; Wenban-Smith et al., 2000; Wynn, 2002). However, despite their simple form, there is significant variation in the design of handaxes across regions and time, challenging the notion of an unchanging tool (Delson et al., 2004; Klein, 1989; Phillipson, 1997; Renfrew & Morley, 2009; Wynn & Tierson, 1990). Complicating the matter, handaxes are made from a wide range of materials, including flint, quartzite, basalt, obsidian and even bone (e.g., Caruana & Herries, 2020; Chelidonio, 2019; Goren-Inbar & Sharon, 2024; Mussi et al., 2023; Rosenberg et al., 2015; Sano et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2017). This diversity in raw materials further challenges the idea of handaxes as uniform tools, as different materials influence both their design and affordances. Some have interpreted this variability as a result of different cultural norms (Finkel & Barkai 2018; Shipton & White, 2020) or simple drift (Lycett, 2008; Lycett & von Cramon-Taubadel, 2008), while others attributed it to raw material quality (Costa, 2010; De La Torre, 2011; Eren et al., 2014; Sharon, 2010; White, 1998) and degree of resharpening (McPherron, 2016; McPherron, 1999, 2006; Clark et al., 2024; Shipton & Clarkson, 2015).

At the same time, handaxes appear for almost a million years in assemblages as far apart as Spain and China, and the mechanisms behind this long-term persistence of the handaxe form are still hotly debated. Some scholars have proposed that its widespread recurrence across time and space may stem from a genetically canalized behavioral predisposition (Corbey et al., 2016). In this view, the production of handaxes may not have required social transmission in all cases but could reflect an evolved cognitive template for bifacial shaping. These perspectives challenge the assumption that technological traditions like the Acheulean were solely maintained through intergenerational learning. In contrast, (McNabb, 2020) defends a culturally based explanation, contending that key archaeological features of handaxes—including their variability and contextual use—are best explained through socially learned behaviors.

Thus, handaxe shape is both variable and constant. The lengths of time involved in these debates require an explanation for both, and yet these tools' function and especially the relationship between use and form has received comparatively little attention. So far, two ideas have been proposed: 1) that handaxe morphology is an intended design feature, facilitating better grip, handling, and efficiency in cutting tasks; and 2) that handaxe morphology is a result of repeated resharpening of the active edges. Regarding the first hypothesis, several studies have suggested that handaxes were intentionally shaped to optimize ergonomic features (Aldien et al., 2005; Gowlett, 2006, 2009; Simão, 2002; Toth & Schick, 2009). The proximal (butt) portion of handaxes, for instance, is frequently more obtuse than the distal end, leading some researchers to propose that this

feature was deliberately produced to facilitate gripping and increase control during use (Key & Lycett, 2017a, b; Mitchell, 1995; Posnansky, 1959). Experimental research has shown that handaxes with moderately obtuse edge angles in the proximal region allow for greater applied force, improving cutting efficiency without compromising effectiveness (Key et al., 2016). However, when angles exceed approximately 70 degrees, cutting efficiency decreases, suggesting that hominins may have actively controlled edge morphology to balance functional performance and ergonomic comfort (Key et al., 2016; Machin et al., 2007; McCall, 2005). Additionally, the weight distribution of handaxes has been linked to ease of handling, with research indicating that placing the highest point of mass centrally within the grip improves usability (Gowlett, 2006, 2009).

To the contrary, the resharpening hypothesis (Iovita & McPherron, 2011; McPherron, 2006) directly ties shape to some aspect of tool function, proposing that repeated use and resharpening of some parts (especially the tips) over others cause most of the variation.

There are issues with both proposals. Ergonomic approaches based on efficiency assessments in experimental tasks can insert too much of the archaeologists' own sensibilities and imagination into past. For instance, several studies have explored the ergonomics of handaxe use experimentally (Fedato & Bruner, 2023; Fedato et al., 2020; Key & Lycett, 2017a, b; Key et al., 2016), but a crucial first step toward testing the experimental results is to establish where wear traces are actually found on these tools. On the other hand, resharpening is a secondary (and blunt) measure of actual use (in the sense of either tool operation or designer-intended function) (Iovita, 2024). Moreover, some recent studies have challenged the utility of resharpening for understanding handaxe shape variation (Clark et al., 2024).

Instead, microscopic wear traces found on the handaxe edges offer a more direct, forensic indicator of past use. To some extent, the few existing use-wear analyses of handaxes already suggest they were used in a variety of ways, such as in cutting animal tissue and wood, and percussive tasks on semi-soft materials (Binneman & Beaumont, 1992; Claud, 2008, 2012; Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001; Hardy et al., 2018; Hérisson et al., 2012; Keeley, 1980; Mitchell, 2016; Moncel, 1995; Murray, 2017; Ollé & Vergès, 2014; Ollé et al., 2015; Rots & Van Peer, 2006; Solodenko et al., 2015; Viallet, 2016; Wenban-Smith et al., 2000; White, 1998; Zupancich et al., 2021). Additionally, some studies have suggested that, beyond their cutting edges, handaxes may have been used in ways that involved the inner faces or broader surfaces of the tool (Mitchell, 1995; Toth & Schick, 2009). Despite these findings, there has been limited systematic research on where wear traces are *generally* found on handaxes and how these relate to their form, thus enabling conclusions about design and ergonomics in a diachronic context.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
La Noira, situated in the Cher River Valley and discovered in the 1970s, provides an ideal case study for examining potential changes in handaxe use over time because of its two occupational phases, recent excavation and modern curation practices, and because its collections were already investigated using high-power microscopic use wear and residue analysis (Hardy et al., 2018), as well as geometric morphometrics (Iovita et al., 2017). It preserves a well-defined stratigraphic sequence spanning the Early and Middle Pleistocene periods. The Acheulean layers, located specifically on terrace D, date back approximately 700 ka, determined through electron spin resonance (ESR), extended-range OSL (TT-OSL) and paleomagnetism (Despriée et al., 2016; Despriée et al., 2007, 2010, 2011, 2017; Duval et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2012; Voinchet et al., 2010). The site comprises two occupation layers, with the early phase dating to around 700 ka and the later phase approximately 450 ka. These phases correspond to the early MIS 16 glacial stage and the end of MIS 12 and beginning of MIS 11, respectively, as supported by ESR dating and geological markers (García-Medrano et al., 2022; Moncel et al., 2013).

Even the oldest handaxes at la Noira are remarkably symmetric (Iovita et al., 2017). Symmetry increases slightly for the later, upper level, and raw materials are imported from farther away, but overall, the differences compared with the older handaxes are small. The first use-wear analyses at la Noira hinted at various activities involving animal and plant matter preserved as residues, supporting their use on a variety of materials (Hardy et al., 2018). Beyond the handaxes themselves, changes observed in the broader lithic assemblage across the main occupation phases at la Noira suggest evolving strategies in raw material procurement and tool production (García-Medrano et al., 2022; Moncel et al., 2021). Yet, despite these technological changes, handaxe morphology remains remarkably stable through time — characterized by a conservation of form, high symmetry, regular access to raw materials, and limited innovation in shaping techniques.

The primary objective of this study is to analyze the distribution of microscopic use-wear on handaxes from both phases to determine whether identifiable wear patterns exist and, if so, whether they remain consistent or show variation between occupations. This approach allows us to assess potential shifts in tool use and ergonomics through time.

# Method

## Sampling Method and Analysis Strategy

This study investigates the functional use of handaxes, examining wear on the tip, edges, butt, and inner surfaces. While previous studies have primarily focused on the tip's

role in active tasks, suggesting its shape and orientation affect its use in cutting or percussive activities (Bello et al., 2009; Hardy et al., 2018; Jones, 1980; Machin et al., 2007; Ollé et al., 2013), the butt has also been considered for tasks like butchering due to its thickness and position as the tool's center of gravity (Gowlett, 2014; Keeley, 1980; Machin et al., 2007; Murray, 2017; Ollé & Vergès, 2014; Preece et al., 2006; Wynn & Coolidge, 2017). Moreover, the handaxe's edges and inner surfaces are recognized for cutting, and recent findings suggest uses in percussive activities and fire-starting, highlighting a wider range of purposes (Dominguez-Rodrigo et al., 2001; Gowlett, 2015; Key & Lycett, 2017b; Sorensen et al., 2018). This study seeks to assess wear patterns on the entire handaxe to determine the active employment of the butt and inner parts, in addition to the traditionally examined edges and tip. To this end, thirty (30) handaxes from the collection, twenty (20) out of the total 31 handaxes from layer A and ten (10) out of the total 47 handaxes and cleaver-like tools from layer C, were randomly selected for analysis. The difference in the number of handaxes analyzed from each layer reflects a practical limitation in the scope of the study, designed to balance depth of analysis with available resources and time constraints. While twenty (20) handaxes were selected from Layer A to provide a robust dataset, the sample size for Layer C was adjusted to ten (10) to ensure the study remained manageable within the timeframe while still yielding meaningful comparative insights. All handaxes included in this study were randomly selected from the curated assemblage, without excluding specimens on the basis of completeness or morphological regularity. To ensure an unbiased sample, all available handaxes were laid out and individually numbered, after which a set of random numbers was generated using Excel to select the final sample. This inclusive approach aimed to avoid introducing a selection bias that might favor only well-preserved or “ideal” handaxes, which could distort interpretations of actual use. While a few of the selected handaxes exhibited damage such as broken or missing tips, these artifacts were nonetheless retained in the sample, as they still offered valuable wear data. Given that previous research has often prioritized shape-based classifications, our study instead focused on functional patterns, and thus required a representative cross-section of the assemblage, including irregular and fragmentary tools. A detailed presentation of the technological characteristics of the la Noira assemblage—including raw material use, shaping strategies, and reduction sequences—can be found in previous studies (García-Medrano et al., 2022; Moncel et al., 2013, 2020, 2021).
Wear Observation and Types

Each handaxe was cleaned in an ultrasonic bath with neutral soap for 10 min before high-resolution photographs were taken from every side for detailed examination. As a first step, macro-wear observations were documented with a digital optical microscope (Dino-Lite AM73915MZT). The study focused on macro-wear (micro-scars, striations, edge rounding, pitting, crushing) for several reasons (Fig. 1). First, experiments and blind testing have proved that micro-scars provide information on the modality of use of stone tools, such as the type of motion (pressure or percussion) as well as the direction of the motion (longitudinal or transverse) (Odell-Vereecken & Odell, 1980; Tringham et al., 1974). Additionally, micro-traces are less affected by post-depositional processes in contrast to micro-traces such as polish which can be altered by patina layers (Beyries, 1990). However, the presence of polishes was also documented when possible. Rounding was recorded only when it could be confidently attributed to use. When the overall edges and ridges appeared uniformly rounded, the alteration was interpreted as taphonomic.

**Micro-scars** Micro-scarring is the result of interaction between the tool and external forces such as pressure, friction, or percussion (Bertouille, 1991; Prost, 1989); their presence is observed for abrasive activity on the edges of stone tools. Differentiating between wear scars and technological scars on bifacial tools such as handaxes can be challenging, particularly in cases where shaping or resharpening overlaps with areas of use. However, several

diagnostic features help in distinguishing the two. Technological scars—those resulting from shaping, thinning, or resharpening—tend to occur in clusters of stepped or hinged removals. These scars are generally larger, and irregularly spread across the edge. In contrast, use-wear scars are typically smaller, more localized, and regularly spaced along the working edge (Odell, 1981; Odell-Vereecken & Odell, 1980; Tringham et al., 1974). Their distribution tends to follow patterns consistent with repetitive contact against specific materials, and they often occur in association with other wear features such as rounding, striations, or polish. When such stepped, irregular scars consistent with shaping or resharpening were observed, they were not categorized as use-wear in this study. While the distinction is not always clear-cut, these criteria provided a reliable framework for separating functional wear from manufacturing traces in the current analysis.

**Striations** Striations are assumed to be due to particles present between the worked material and the tool or within the worked material and that produces linear traces on the tool. They give information on the direction of the motion (Kamminga, 1979; Keeley, 1980; Mansur-Franchomme, 1986a; Semenov, 1964).

**Crushing and Pitting** The term crushing describes small and overlapping removals due to pressures applied on the cutting edge (Hayden, 1979; Kamminga, 1979). Pitting and crushing of the stone tool edges are observed mainly for percussive activities (Caricola et al., 2018; Haslam et al., 2013).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Representation of the different types of wear on a section of edge used during the study. A Edge rounding; B Edge crushing; C Micro-scars; D Striations; E Polish observed with the Dino-Lite (AM73915MZT) X50μ)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
**Edge Rounding** The term rounding is used to describe an edge portion that became round/blunt due to abrasion (Roe-broeks et al., 1988; Unrath et al., 1984; Van Gijn, 1986). The position of the rounding on the edge can give information on the type of motion. If the rounding appears equally on both sides of the edge, the motion is likely longitudinal; if it is present predominantly on one side, the motion is likely transversal (Anderson-Gerfaud, 1981; Keeley & Toth, 1981; Mansur-Franchomme, 1986b; Vaughan, 1981).

**Polish** Even if some studies on handaxes have described some polish (Binneman & Beaumont, 1992; Keeley, 1980; White, 1998), polish preservation depends on how patinated the handaxe surfaces are.

The faces were named according to the following strategy: if plano-convex, face A is always the convex face, and face B is always the flat face; if bi-convex, face A is always the face with the highest point in relation to the plane formed by the cutting edges. When it was not possible to identify a more protuberant face, faces were randomly assigned the names Face 1/Face 2.

The Dino-Lite microscope accommodates the entire surface of a handaxe and offers a magnification range of 20× to 240×, allowing for the documentation of both micro- and macro-wear traces. Equipped with light filters that replicate co-axial illumination, it enables the identification and characterization of polish when present (see Fig. 1E). To visualize the use-wear patterns on each tool, a standardized handaxe template was used to digitize the distinct types of use-wear, their specific locations, and their extent on the tool's surface in Illustrator (Fig. 2). The thickness of the lines in these diagrams reflects the invasiveness of the traces, with thicker lines representing more extensive or pronounced modifications. To enhance clarity and provide a tangible representation of these wear patterns, microscopic images alongside the mapped observations were incorporated (Supp 2). This approach offers a broad insight into the wear characteristics of each handaxe. Blind tests on active areas show 87.5% accuracy in identifying the active area at high magnification (Keeley & Newcomer, 1977), and 80% accuracy at low magnification (Odell-Vereecken & Odell, 1980). Along with wear traces, any other important information such as breakage or post-depositional phenomena were also described.

## Post-Depositional Processes

It is important to take into account the post-depositional processes that could have impacted the tools. Taphonomic studies conducted during and after the excavations at la Noira have provided crucial insights into site formation processes, artifact distribution, and post-depositional dynamics.

Detailed documentation and analysis of 6,495 lithic objects — including their physical characteristics, orientation, and alterations — revealed the combined effects of natural processes and human activities on the archaeological record. These studies highlight, in particular, the presence of anthropogenically modified millstone fragments and the overall good preservation of cutting edges in stratum C, suggesting limited post-depositional disturbance. The patterns observed indicate that artifact distribution and wear have been primarily shaped by human behavior rather than by natural site formation processes (see Supp. 1 for detailed taphonomic and geoarchaeological analyses). The distribution and intensity of use-wear on a stone artifact is markedly different from the traces that post-depositional agents leave (Plisson & Van Gijn, 1989). Sediment compaction and slumping, chemical weathering, fluvial transport, and freeze-thaw cycles should produce damage present over the whole surface of the tool, such as an overall abrasion of the tool, a global rounding of the ridges, or patina. Trampling, however, can produce edge damage similar to micro-scars. Yet, studies suggest that edge damage from trampling presents no strong location preference (Burroni et al., 2002; Eren et al., 2011; McBrearty et al., 1998; Pryor, 1988; Shea & Klenck, 1993; Tringham et al., 1974). In our study, we recorded observations regarding post-depositional traces such as extensive rounding, abrasions, or thick patina and their spatial distribution on the artifacts.

## Wear Distribution Maps

Following the use-wear documentation, handaxe templates were exported as shapefiles in ArcGIS to create maps of the most used areas depending on wear types. Although developed for landscape-scale data, GIS methods can be useful for quantifying the spatial distribution of traces on stone tools (Benito-Calvo et al., 2015; Benito-Calvo et al., 2018; Bird et al., 2007; De La Torre, 2011; Schoville, 2010) and bones (Abe et al., 2002; Marean et al., 2001; Parkinson et al., 2014, 2015, 2022). Most relevant to our study, Murray (2017) applied the edge damage distribution method developed by Bird et al. (2007) and Schoville (2010) to handaxes from the Lower to Middle Palaeolithic site of Shishan Marsh 1 (Jordan). By combining experimental archaeology, low-powered microscopy, and GIS spatial analysis, Murray demonstrated the method's potential for identifying activity patterns and functional variability in biface use at the assemblage scale. Similarly, De la Torre et al. (2011), and Benito-Calvo et al. (2015, 2018) applied GIS and 3D morphometrics to experimentally and archaeologically analyze pounding tools, producing surface roughness and wear distribution maps.

This study differs from the above-mentioned work in several methodological ways. Instead of mapping individual micro-polygons of edge damage, as done in Bird and Schoville's
Site: La Noira
Handaxe code:
BFLN O. A7 d.2 n1
Face: Face A (rounded)

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Template mapping use-wear observation on a handaxe from la Noira. Black lines around the picture of the tool represent previous wear results published in Hardy et al. (2018)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
studies, the present approach relies on a standardized handaxe template divided into eight spatially defined zones. Each zone was scored according to the distribution of wear observed under low- and high-power magnification (0–4 scale), drawing inspiration from anatomical mapping techniques used in zoo-archaeology for MNE and cut mark frequency (e.g., Abe et al., 2002; Marean et al., 2001). This method allows for a semi-quantitative synthesis of wear distribution without requiring full digitization of scar outlines, making it particularly suitable for the use-wear analysis of bifaces and other large tools with continuous edges. Crucially, unlike the edge damage distribution method (EDDM), which focuses primarily on the spatial frequency of generic edge damage, this approach records distinct use-wear types (e.g., micro-scars, crushing, polish), enabling a more nuanced interpretation of tool function. Differentiating wear types is particularly valuable, as it provides complementary insights into the nature of contact actions (e.g., percussive vs. cutting) and the motions involved in tool use. While not intended to replace EDDM, this method offers a flexible and replicable framework that expands the analytical resolution of distributional studies. Although the handaxes in this study vary in size, shaping intensity, and symmetry, the use of a standardized template was a deliberate choice.

A toolbox was created to process the digitized use wear traces for each type of wear (Fig. 3). All wear observations were imported as unique polygon features into ArcGIS. These features were then converted into raster data using the Polygon to Raster function. Rasters had a value of "1" in areas with use wear while areas without wear had a value of "0". CellsRasters were added to the overlain templates to create heat maps visualizing which areas of the tools showed the most wear, with higher values indicating more overlapping wear traces. areas on the handaxes with frequent wear traces. We compare wear patterns across various factors, such as handaxe shape, faces, and archaeological

layers to assess changes in the spatial patterns of use wear on handaxes. The heatmaps also help identify potential pre-hension areas versus active tool edges among the handaxes.

To assess statistical differences in spatial wear patterns between the two archaeological layers at la Noira, each tool's edge was divided into eight sections—four on each lateral edge—using the grid-based template. Sections were scored based on the extent of wear: absent (0), present on ¼ of the Sect. (1), ½ (2), ¾ (3), or the full Sect. (4). Scores were summed separately for the left and right edges of each tool, with the “right edge” defined as the right side when observing the convex face (Face A), and the “left edge” as the left side of the same face. These summed values were then aggregated by layer (Layer A: *n* = 20; Layer C: *n* = 10) and by edge side. Chi-square tests with Yates’ correction were applied to test whether there were significant differences in wear distribution between layers and between lateral edges. When necessary, Monte Carlo simulation with one million permutations was used to refine *p*-values and account for small, expected frequencies.

## Results

Only the results for micro-scars and crushing are presented in detail in this section because polish and rounding were rarely observed within the analyzed corpus and did not allow for a meaningful analysis.

### Stratum A

Stratum A of la Noira contains the site's oldest layers. Handaxes from this layer show a spread-out pattern of micro-scars across the surface of their edge (Fig. 4). The scars are evenly distributed along both edges, with most of the wear located on the tool's top half.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** ArcGIS workflow to prepare heatmaps from templates for a given wear type</figcaption></figure>
Face A

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Face B

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Overall assemblage

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4 Micro-scars distribution for the stratum A of la Noira</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
The crushing damage is located mainly on the top three-quarters of the handaxes (Fig. 5). The tip and butt areas present fewer damages than the other handaxes. One of the two edges (the same edge as stratum C) seems slightly more damaged, particularly for the first and third quarters of the tools. Crushing damage in stratum A predominantly occupies the upper three-quarters of the handaxes. The topmost quarter, specifically the tip, has less crushing damage. The wear pattern on one of the edges is still noticeable but seems slightly less pronounced in this layer. This might suggest a shift in usage or prehension over time.

Micro-scars and crushing present distinct patterns on the handaxes from la Noira. Furthermore, one handaxe from this layer exhibited crushed areas and impacts on its inner surface, suggesting uses beyond merely that of the sharp

edges. This indicates that handaxes from this layer could have been utilized not only for their cutting capabilities but also for delivering blunt force.

Stratum C

Stratum C of la Noira contains the site's youngest layers. Most handaxes from this stratum exhibit a concentration of micro-scars on the top half, particularly around the tip area (Fig. 6). In contrast, the butt of the handaxes shows significantly fewer micro-scars, suggesting a less active role in usage. This pattern may indicate that the butt served primarily as a prehensile part, while the tip was employed in tasks requiring precision and sharpness, such as cutting, slicing, or carving.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Crushing distribution for the stratum A of la Noira</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6** Micro-scars distribution for the stratum C of la Noira</figcaption></figure>

For handaxes with asymmetrical faces, the micro-scars appear to cluster more heavily on one edge, suggesting preferrential use or a dominant cutting side. The overall assemblage image includes additional handaxes not featured in the two-face comparison. Many of these added bifaces are highly symmetrical, making it impossible to distinguish between their faces. This inclusion accounts for the observed discrepancies and ensures that the overall assemblage provides a more comprehensive representation of the collection.

The crushing damage is more prevalent around the center of the handaxe edges (Fig. 7). Specifically, the third quarter of the tool seems to exhibit the most wear. The butt of the handaxes, much like with the micro-scars, shows minimal signs of crushing. This consistent pattern across different types of wear reinforces the interpretation of the butt being less actively utilized. Asymmetrical wear is again noticeable, with one edge of the handaxes presenting more crushing damages, especially along the first and third quarters. In Fig. 7, the upper

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7** Crushing distribution for the stratum C of la Noira</figcaption></figure>

diagrams represent only those Layer C handaxes exhibiting a clear asymmetry between a flat and a convex face. This subset was analyzed separately to explore whether this morphological distinction corresponded with lateralized wear suggestive of ergonomic grip preferences. The composite diagram below includes the entire Layer C sample. The additional signals of crushing on the butt in this composite reflect wear patterns from more symmetrical-faced handaxes, suggesting that these

morphologies may have allowed or encouraged alternative gripping strategies that involved this area more actively.

We examined the spatial distribution of macro-wear traces (crushing and micro-scars) to test if it differed between the two occupation phases at la Noira. The results highlight a significant variation in crushing wear, but no statistically significant difference for micro-scarring. For crushing wear, a Chi-square test with Yates' correction
indicated a statistically significant difference between the left and right edge distributions in Layer A versus Layer C ($\chi^2=5.14, p=0.023$; Monte Carlo $p=0.008$). In Layer A, crushing traces were relatively evenly distributed between the left (176) and right (167) edges. In contrast, Layer C showed an asymmetrical pattern, with more crushing concentrated on the right edge (Left: 43; Right: 69), suggesting a potential behavioral shift in how tools were grasped or used between phases.

For micro-scars, no statistically significant difference was detected in lateral distribution between layers ($\chi^2=2.48, p=0.115$; Monte Carlo $p=0.102$), though a similar directional trend was observed. In Layer A, micro-scars were slightly more frequent on the left edge (52 vs. 43), while in Layer C they appeared more concentrated on the right (58 vs. 76). However, this variation did not reach statistical significance.

These findings refine initial observations from the heat-maps: while both wear types showed some lateral variation, only crushing wear exhibited a statistically significant shift between the two layers. This suggests a change in tool use or handling over time, rather than a uniform pattern across all wear types.

Finally, our results suggest that the handaxes from Stratum C, the younger of the two layers at La Noira, may have been used with a grip that favored one side of the tool (Fig. 8). The overlay of wear concentrations (in red and yellow) and the proposed hand position (purple area) indicate a slightly more lateral or offset grip, particularly in tools with asymmetrical cross-sections. This contrasts with the more balanced and symmetrical distribution of wear observed in Stratum A, which may reflect either a different mode of handling or a wider diversity of functional roles.

## Discussion

Overall, for both layers, micro scars predominantly appear on the upper half of the tools, mainly focused around the tip area, but handaxes from stratum A have a more even distribution of micro-scars. Crushing damage is more centered around the midsection, particularly in the third quarter of the handaxe edges. This disparity in distribution suggests that the handaxes underwent different forms of mechanical stresses during their usage. The concentration of micro-scars towards the tip might suggest activities such as cutting, since producing micro-scars requires less force, while the presence of crushing in the mid-section could indicate pounding or heavy-duty tasks. The butt of the handaxes consistently shows less wear in general, possibly indicating a less active role in tool-related tasks.

Both layers exhibit a more pronounced wear on the top half of the handaxes, a pattern that has also been observed at other Acheulian sites. For example, Viallet (2016) noted that at Terra Amata, use-wear and micro-scars on seven handaxes indicated that the working edge was predominantly located on the distal part of the tool. Additionally, two bifaces exhibited use marks on their transversal working edges, suggesting they were used in handheld percussion. These similarities reinforce the idea that the tip of handaxes often played a primary functional role, with variation in wear distribution reflecting different modes of use. Handaxes from stratum C show a stronger concentration of micro-scars toward the tip compared to those from stratum A, where scars are more evenly distributed along the edges. In addition, several asymmetrical handaxes from stratum C display heavier wear on one edge, suggesting that they were consistently used on the same side — either due to their shape or to specific tasks

<table><caption>**Fig. 8** Proposed hand grip interpretations based on the distribution of wear for each layer at La Noira. The purple area indicates the potential hand position, while the drawn hands illustrate one possible grip configuration</caption><thead><tr><th>Stratum A</th><th>Stratum C</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
performed. In contrast, wear patterns in stratum A appear
more balanced between edges and along the length of the
tool, indicating a potentially different way of handling or
using the handaxes over time. Handaxes from stratum A
display a greater variability in shape and degree of shaping.
These range from fully shaped handaxes, produced through
extensive bifacial removals, to more expedient tools with
limited shaping along the two convergent edges and the tip.
Two specimens even feature a transverse extremity fashioned
by bifacial removals. Overall, their forms include heart-
shaped (cordiform), oval, or triangular morphologies, with
edges typically smoothed by unifacial or bifacial retouch.
About half of the handaxes are symmetrical in cross-section.
For stratum C, handaxes vary; they may be symmetrical in
cross-section or not, displaying extensive shaping through
multiple series of removals followed by final retouching.
The shaping primarily concentrates on the upper two-thirds
of the tool and the tip. The forms are similar (heart-shaped,
oval, lanceolate) to those in stratum A, crafted from either
local millstone or Cretaceous flint sourced from a distance.

Comparing stratum A to stratum C showed changes in
how handaxes are used, as seen in the different wear pat-
terns. This research on the bifaces from la Noira comple-
ments the observations made by Hardy et al., 2018. Their
study highlighted the flexibility and opportunistic nature of
handaxe use, noting that not just the tip or the two conver-
gent edges were utilized. Any part of the periphery could
be engaged, whether it had been retouched or not. They
also emphasized that the base was not exclusively used for
gripping but was often a cutting edge as well. Residues
observed in this study further suggested that handaxes at
la Noira were used in the processing of a wide variety of
materials, including plants, wood, animals, birds, and fish
(Hardy et al., 2018). Our findings reinforce these insights
and further emphasize the functional versatility and adapt-
ability of bifacial tools at la Noira. Notably, although a few
handaxes in our sample lacked complete tips, the results
consistently showed that the tip area remains one of the
most intensively used zones across the assemblage.

In the discourse surrounding handaxes in human evolu-
tion, symmetry has frequently been presented as a proxy
for the cognitive advancement in hominins. It is commonly
believed that an increase in handaxe symmetry over time
mirrors an evolutionary trajectory in brain development
and the resulting capacities for refining and shaping natural
materials. However, other researchers challenge this idea by
suggesting that handaxe symmetry and refinement are not
the result of a consistent evolutionary trend but rather reflect
localized or situational choices. For example, McNabb and
Cole (2015) argue that the archaeological record does not
show a gradual or universal increase in handaxe symmetry
over time. Instead, they propose a "variable equilibrium"
model, in which different levels of refinement coexisted

across time and space, depending on functional needs, raw
material availability, and cultural preferences.

Regarding the site of la Noira, Iovita et al. (2017) found
that comparatively high levels of symmetry were already
present in stratum A, concluding that the ability to produce
symmetrical handaxes existed since the beginning of the
European Acheulian. However, they correlated these trends
in handaxe symmetry at la Noira to the degree of reduction,
emphasizing the potential influence of raw material avail-
ability and discard patterns on observed symmetry values.
This view is further supported by Machin et al. (2007), who
demonstrated that symmetry plays only a marginal role in
the effectiveness of handaxes for butchery, suggesting that
other variables might have been more critical in shaping
these tools.

This could reflect differences in hand positioning or
task-specific actions. Experimental work by Murray (2017)
supports the idea that grip can influence the spatial dis-
tribution of edge damage. Using Schoville's (2010) Edge
Damage Distribution Method, Murray observed that
different grips could produce distinct edge damage pat-
terns. Recent studies underscore the role of ergonomics in
shaping handaxe morphology and use. Key et al. (2016)
demonstrated that edge angles influence both cutting
efficiency and hand comfort, suggesting that ergonomic
considerations may have guided design choices. Fedato
et al. (2020, 2024) extended this perspective through
morphometric, biomechanical, and psychophysiological
approaches, showing that tool form affects grasping behav-
ior, user comfort, and even attentional engagement. These
insights are especially relevant to our observations at la
Noira, where the preferential use of one lateral edge in
some stratum C handaxes—particularly those with a flat-
ter face opposite a more convex one—may reflect similar
ergonomic concerns, with tool morphology guiding grip-
ping behavior. Moreover, it is essential to consider the
ergonomic implications of using these tools. For instance,
it is impractical to grip a handaxe by its sharp edges for
tasks requiring force, as this might lead to injury. To pro-
tect oneself, one could use a handle made of wood, plant
material, bone, or leather. Such handles for bifacial tools
are known from Arctic *ulu* knives used by Inuit women to
process skins, and have been proposed for other bifacial
tools in the Middle Palaeolithic on the basis of polishes
present on the interior surfaces of handaxes (Claud, 2008).
Although Neanderthals are now commonly thought to
have gripped tools using precision rather than power grips
(Karakostis et al., 2018), recent morphometric research
on Neanderthal thumb morphology suggests habitual use
of extended and adducted thumb postures consistent with
transverse power squeeze grips, likely suited for hafted
tool use (Bardo et al., 2020). Use wear analysis could
be key to understanding how far back into the past these
activities reached, since the fossil record for the Lower Palaeolithic is sparser. In the future, replicative experiments with different grips can contribute to clearer hypotheses that can be tested in the archaeological record.

## Conclusion

This study on handaxe wear patterns at la Noira aimed to explore persistent use and variability of handaxes across different stages of the Lower Palaeolithic period. Focusing on chert handaxes, we employed digital microscopy and GIS to classify and analyze the distribution of wear along their edges. The findings at la Noira revealed that micro-scars concentrated on the upper half of the handaxes, indicating primary use for precision activities like cutting or piercing. Crushing damage in the mid-section suggested use in rough tasks, such as cutting associated with pounding. These findings do not contradict the idea that handaxes were multifunctional tools, as shown in previous research (e.g., Hardy et al., 2018). Rather, they suggest that multifunctionality was neither random, nor expressed in a uniform way over time. At la Noira, while handaxes from both occupational phases were used for a variety of tasks, the patterns and locations of wear differ between layers. This points to a shift in how the tools were handled and operated, suggesting that even if handaxes remained versatile, the ways in which they were used may have changed across time.

Such patterns raise doubts that symmetry is only related to aesthetics; rather, it becomes clear that differences in the tool's operation, i.e., how it was held and moved also play an important role (Iovita, 2024; Sigaut, 1991). The evidence thus suggests that handaxe use was shaped by a dynamic interplay of factors, where ergonomic considerations and functional demands interacted with the constraints of raw material quality, knapping skill, and unintended morphological outcomes — all of which likely influenced how these tools were ultimately grasped and operated. Further, we examined the entire surface of each handaxe at la Noira in order to assess whether the butt and inner part were actively used and found that they likely were used occasionally as blunt tools. Our findings underscore the importance of considering the entire tool in use-wear analysis to fully appreciate handaxe use and its implications for early hominin technological capabilities and cultural practices.

Future research should broaden the dataset to include handaxes from a wider geographical and temporal range. Ideally, such research would correlate wear patterns with a detailed morphometric analysis to better understand the relationship between designer-intended function, operation, shape, dimensions, and edge angles on function. This approach could provide a more nuanced view of

the adaptive strategies of hominin populations, revealing aspects of technology otherwise masked by the uniformity of stone tool shapes.

**Supplementary Information** The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-025-00241-2.

**Acknowledgements** A.R. acknowledges her dissertation committee, especially Claudio Tennie (University of Tübingen) and Justin Pargeter (NYU), for their discussions and suggestions, which greatly contributed to the completion of this work.

**Author Contributions** A.R. was responsible for data collection, data analysis, research design, wrote the main manuscript text, and creating the figures. E.C. contributed to the GIS analysis and contributed to the relevant sections. M.-H.M. served as the second supervisor and collection director, contributing to writing, editing, and figure preparation. J.D. wrote the section on taphonomy. B.H. reviewed the manuscript and provided critical feedback. R.I. was the Principal Investigator (PI) of the project, contributed to the research design, and assisted with writing and editing the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This research was part of A.R.'s PhD dissertation at New York University and was made possible through the generous support of the Leakey Foundation (A22-0870-001_UNIX Award_20220915) and the Graduate Research Integration (GRI) fellowship program at New York University Paris. Fieldwork and surveys at la Noira were supported by the Centre Region (Ministry of Culture) and the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, project ANR PremAcheuSept (2010–2014, n° 2006 01, PI M.-H. Moncel).

**Data Availability** No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

## Declarations

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

* Abe, Y., Marean, C. W., Nilssen, P. J., Assefa, Z., & Stone, E. C. (2002). The analysis of cutmarks on archaeofauna: A review and critique of quantification procedures, and a new image-analysis GIS approach. *American Antiquity*, *67*(4), 643–663.

* Aldien, Y., Welcome, D., Rakheja, S., Dong, R., & Boileau, P.-E. (2005). Contact pressure distribution at hand-handle interface:
Role of hand forces and handle size. *International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics*, 35(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2004.09.005

Anderson-Gerfaud, P. (1981). *Contribution méthodologique à l'analyse des microtraces d'utilisation sur les outils préhistoriques* [Doctoral dissertation]. Université de Bordeaux I.

Antón, S. C. (2003). Natural history of *Homo erectus*. *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 122(S37), 126–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10399

Bardo, A., Moncel, M.-H., Dunmore, C. J., Kivell, T. L., Pouydebat, E., & Cornette, R. (2020). The implications of thumb movements for Neanderthal and modern human manipulation. *Scientific Reports*, 10(1), Article 19323.

Bello, S. M., Parfitt, S. A., & Stringer, C. (2009). Quantitative micro-morphological analyses of cut marks produced by ancient and modern handaxes. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 36(9), 1869–1880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.04.014

Benito-Calvo, A., Arroyo, A., Sánchez-Romero, L., Pante, M., & de la Torre, I. (2018). Quantifying 3D micro-surface changes on experimental stones used to break bones and their implications for the analysis of early Stone Age pounding tools. *Archaeometry*, 60(3), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12325

Benito-Calvo, A., Carvalho, S., Arroyo, A., Matsuzawa, T., & de la Torre, I. (2015). First GIS analysis of modern stone tools used by wild chimpanzees (*Pan troglodytes verus*) in Bossou, Guinea, West Africa. *PLoS One*, 10(3), Article e0121613. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121613

Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., & Martinón-Torres, M. (2019). *What does *Homo antecessor* tell us about the origin of the “emergent humanity” that gave rise to *Homo sapiens*? https://cir.cenieh.es/bitstream/20.500.12136/1649/1/What%20does%20Homo%20antecessor%20tell%20us%20about%20the%20origin%20of%20the%20E2%80%9Cemergent%20humanity%E2%80%9D%20that%20gave%20rise%20to%20Homo%20sapiens_Berm%C3%BAdez%20de%20Castro_et_Martin%C3%B3n-Torres_2019.pdf*

Bertouille, H. (1991). Réflexions à propos des traces d'utilisation présentées par les outils préhistoriques. *Paléo, Revue d'Archéologie Préhistorique*, 3(1), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.3406/pal.1991.1047

Beyries, S. (1990). *Problems of interpreting the functional results for ancient periods*. The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies. (Aun 14), Uppsala, 71e76.

Binneman, J., & Beaumont, P. (1992). Use-wear-analysis of two Acheulean handaxes from Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape. *Southern African Field Archaeology*, 1(2), 92–97.

Bird, C., Minichillo, T., & Marean, C. W. (2007). Edge damage distribution at the assemblage level on Middle Stone Age lithics: An image-based GIS approach. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 34(5), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.08.005

Burroni, D., Donahue, R. E., Pollard, A. M., & Mussi, M. (2002). The surface alteration features of flint artefacts as a record of environmental processes. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 29(11), 1277–1287. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0771

Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X. P., de Castro, J. M. B., Burjachs, F., Rosell, J., Sala, R., & Vallverdú, J. (2008). Eurasian gates: The earliest human dispersals. *Journal of Anthropological Research*, 64(2), 195–228. JSTOR.

Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X. P., Sala, R., & Van Der Made, J. (1999). Out of Africa: The dispersal of the earliest technical systems reconsidered. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 18(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.1998.0331

Caricola, I., Zupancich, A., Moscone, D., Mutri, G., Falcucci, A., Duches, R., Peresani, M., & Cristiani, E. (2018). An integrated method for understanding the function of macro-lithic tools. Use

wear, 3D and spatial analyses of an Early Upper Palaeolithic assemblage from North Eastern Italy. *PLoS ONE*. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207773

Caruana, M. V., & Herries, A. I. (2020). An Acheulian balancing act: A multivariate examination of size and shape in Handaxes from Amani Springs, eastern cape, South Africa. In *Landscapes of human evolution* (pp. 91–115). Archaeopress Oxford. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=4732517&publisher=FZR707&page=100

Chelidonio, G. (2019). Basalt handaxes: Preliminarily testing the lithic translation strategy hypothesis and comparisons with the fontana ranuccio site bifacial tools. *EXARC Journal, EXARC Journal Issue 2019/4*. https://exarc.net/issue-2019-4/ea/basalt-handaxes

Clark, J., Shipton, C., Moncel, M.-H., Nigst, P. R., & Foley, R. A. (2024). When is a handaxe a planned-axe? Exploring morphological variability in the Acheulean. *PLoS One*, 19(7), Article e0307081.

Claud, É. (2008). *Le statut fonctionnel des bifaces au Paléolithique moyen récent dans le Sud-Ouest de la France. Étude tracéologique intégrée des outillages des sites de La Graulet, La Conne de Bergerac, Combe Brune 2, Fonseigner et Chez-Pinaud / Jonzac* [Phdthesis, Université Sciences et Technologies - Bordeaux I]. https://theses.hal.science/tel-00361290

Claud, É. (2012). Les bifaces: Des outils polyfonctionnels? Étude tracéologique intégrée de bifaces du Paléolithique moyen récent du Sud-Ouest de la France. *Bulletin De La Société Préhistorique Française*, 109(3), 413–439.

Corbey, R., Jagich, A., Vaesen, K., & Collard, M. (2016). The acheulean handaxe: More like a bird's song than a beatles' tune? *Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews*, 25(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21467

Costa, A. G. (2010). A geometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and stone acheulean bifaces from the middle pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. In S. Lycett & P. Chauhan (Eds.), *New perspectives on old stones: Analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies* (pp. 23–41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6861-6_2

De La Torre, I. (2011). The early stone age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the developed oldowan/early acheulean in East Africa. *Journal of Human Evolution*, 60(6), 768–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.01.009

Delson, E., Tattersall, I., Van Couvering, J., & Brooks, A. S. (2004). *Encyclopedia of human evolution and prehistory*. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-mono/10.4324/9780200942096/encyclopedia-human-evolution-prehistory-eric-delson-john-van-couvering-ian-tattersall-alison-brooks

Despriée, J., Courcimault, G., Moncel, M.-H., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Puaud, S., Gallet, X., Bahain, J.-J., Moreno, D., & Falgueres, C. (2016). The acheulean site of la Noira (Centre region, France): Characterization of materials and alterations, choice of lacustrine millstone and evidence of anthropogenic behaviour. *Quaternary International*, 411, 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.101

Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Bahain, J.-J., Tissoux, H., Falguères, C., Dépont, J., & Dolo, J.-M. (2007). Les nappes alluviales pléistocènes de la vallée moyenne du Cher (Région Centre, France): Contexte morphosédimentaire, chronologie ESR et Préhistoire. *Quaternaire. Revue de l'Association française pour l'étude du Quaternaire*, 18/4, Article 18/4. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaternaire.1225

Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Courcimault, G., Bahain, J.-J., Puaud, S., Moreno, D., Chantreau, Y., Tissoux, H., Gallet, X., Chapon Sao, C., Abdessadok, S., & Falguères, C. (2017). Le site pléistocène moyen de la Noira à Brinay (Cher, région Centre, France): Contexte morphosédimentaire, géochronologie et données archéologiques. *Quaternaire. Revue de l'Association*
française pour l'étude du Quaternaire, 28/1, Article 28/1.
https://doi.org/10.4000/quaternaire.7900

Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Bahain, J.-J., Falguères, C., Courcimault, G., Dépont, J., Moncel, M.-H., Robin, S., Arzarello, M., Sala, R., Marquer, L., Messager, E., Puaud, S., & Abdessadok, S. (2011). Lower and middle Pleistocene human settlements recorded in fluvial deposits of the middle Loire River basin, Centre Region, France. *Quaternary Science Reviews, 30*(11), 1474–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.02.011

Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moncel, M.-H., Arzarello, M., Robin, S., Bahain, J.-J., Falguères, C., Courcimault, G., Dépont, J., Gageonnet, R., Marquer, L., Messager, E., Abdessadok, S., & Puaud, S. (2010). Lower and middle Pleistocene human settlements in the Middle Loire River Basin, Centre Region, France. *Quaternary International, 223*, 345–359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2009.07.019

Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Tresserras, J., Alcala, L., & Luque, L. (2001). Woodworking activities by early humans: A plant residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). *Journal of Human Evolution, 40*(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0466

Duval, M., Voinchet, P., Arnold, L. J., Parés, J. M., Minnella, W., Guilarte, V., Demuro, M., Falguères, C., Bahain, J.-J., & Despriée, J. (2020). A multi-technique dating study of two lower palaeolithic sites from the Cher Valley (Middle Loire Catchment, France): Lunery-la Terre-des-Sablons and Brinay-la Noira. *Quaternary International, 556*, 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.05.033

Eren, M. I., Boehm, A. R., Morgan, B. M., Anderson, R., & Andrews, B. (2011). Flaked stone taphonomy: A controlled experimental study of the effects of sediment consolidation on flake edge morphology. *Journal of Taphonomy, 9*(3), 201–217.

Eren, M. I., Roos, C. I., Story, B. A., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., & Lycett, S. J. (2014). The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation: An experimental assessment. *Journal of Archaeological Science, 49*, 472–487.

Fedato, A., & Bruner, E. (2023). Chapter 11 - Handling prehistory: Tools, electrophysiology, and haptics. In E. Bruner (Ed.), *Cognitive archaeology, body cognition, and the evolution of visuospatial perception* (pp. 241–262). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99193-3.00012-X

Fedato, A., Silva-Gago, M., Terradillos-Bernal, M., Alonso-Alcalde, R., & Bruner, E. (2020). Hand grasping and finger flexion during lower Paleolithic stone tool ergonomic exploration. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12*(11), Article 254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01189-w

Fedato, A., Silva-Gago, M., Terradillos-Bernal, M., Alonso-Alcalde, R., & Bruner, E. (2024). The influence of hand dimensions on finger flexion during Lower Paleolithic stone tool use in a comfortable grip. *Quaternary, 7*(3), 29.

Finkel, M., & Barkai, R. (2018). The Acheulean handaxe technological persistence: A case of preferred cultural conservatism? *Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 84*, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2018.2

García-Medrano, P., Despriée, J., & Moncel, M.-H. (2022). Innovations in Acheulean biface production at la Noira (France) during middle Pleistocene in Western Europe. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 14*(4), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-022-01506-5

Goren-Inbar, N. (2011). Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry: A case study from Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366*(1567), 1038–1049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0365

Goren-Inbar, N., & Sharon, G. (2024). Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian biface technology at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. In *Axe Age* (pp. 111–135). Routledge.

Gowlett, J. A. (1986). Culture and conceptualisation: The Oldowan-Acheulian gradient. In *Stone Age prehistory: Studies in memory of Charles McBurney* (pp. 243–260).

Gowlett, J. A. J. (2006). The early settlement of northern Europe: Fire history in the context of climate change and the social brain. *Comptes Rendus Palevol, 5*(1–2), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2005.10.008

Gowlett, J. A. J. (2009). The longest transition or multiple revolutions? In M. Camps & P. Chauhan (Eds.), *Sourcebook of paleolithic transitions* (pp. 65–78). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_4

Gowlett, J. A. J. (2014). The elements of design form in acheulean bifaces. In R. I. M. Dunbar, C. Gamble, & J. A. J. Gowlett (Eds.), *Lucy to language* (pp. 409–426). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199652594.003.0018

Gowlett, J. A. J. (2015). Variability in an early hominin percussive tradition: The Acheulean versus cultural variation in modern chimpanzee artefacts. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370*(1682), Article 20140358. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0358

Hardy, B. L., Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Courcimault, G., & Voinchet, P. (2018). Middle pleistocene hominin behavior at the 700ka acheulean site of la Noira (France). *Quaternary Science Reviews, 199*, 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.09.013f

Haslam, M., Gumert, M. D., Biro, D., Carvalho, S., & Malaivijitnond, S. (2013). Use-wear patterns on wild macaque stone tools reveal their behavioural history. *PLoS ONE*. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072872

Hayden, B. (1979). *Lithic use-wear analysis*. https://www.bcin.ca/bcin/detail.app?id=117500

Hérisson, D., Airvaux, J., Lenoble, A., Richter, D., Claud, É., & Primault, J. (2012). The Acheulean site of "La Grande Vallée" at Colombiers (Vienne, France): Stratigraphy, formation processes, preliminary dating and lithic industries. *PALEO, Revue D'Archéologie Préhistorique*, 23, Article 23. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.2484

Hershkovitz, I., Weber, G. W., Quam, R., Duval, M., Grün, R., Kinsley, L., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Valladas, H., Mercier, N., Arsuaga, J. L., Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez De Castro, J. M., Fornai, C., Martín-Francés, L., Sarig, R., May, H., Krenn, V. A., Slon, V., & Weinstein-Evron, M. (2018). The earliest modern humans outside Africa. *Science, 359*(6374), 456–459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8369

Hodgson, D. (2015). The symmetry of Acheulean handaxes and cognitive evolution. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2*, 204–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.02.002

Iovita, R. (2024). A return to function as the basis of lithic classification. https://zenodo.org/records/11203984

Iovita, R., & McPherron, S. P. (2011). The handaxe reloaded: A morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. *Journal of Human Evolution, 61*(1), 61–74.

Iovita, R., Tuvi-Arad, I., Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., & Bahain, J.-J. (2017). High handaxe symmetry at the beginning of the European Acheulian: The data from la Noira (France) in context. *PLoS One, 12*(5), Article e0177063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177063

Jones, P. R. (1980). Experimental butchery with modern stone tools and its relevance for palaeolithic archaeology. *World Archaeology, 12*(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979789
Kamminga, J. (1979). The nature of use-polish and abrasive smoothing on stone tools. In B. Hayden (Ed.), *Lithic use-wear analysis* (pp. 143–157). Academic Press.

Karakostis, F. A., Hotz, G., Tourloukis, V., & Harvati, K. (2018). Evidence for precision grasping in Neandertal daily activities. *Science Advances*, *4*(9), Article eaat2369. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2369

Keeley, L. H. (1980). *Experimental determination of stone tool uses: A microwear analysis*. https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=paDTQZykDlwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=Keeley,1980&ots=CHsj2x3lgH&sig=r5uC5ny5bhvcK0nD_2bPR3hGSsA#v=onepage&q=Keeley%2C1980&f=false

Keeley, L. H., & Newcomer, M. H. (1977). Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: A test case. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, *4*(1), 29–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(77)90111-X

Keeley, L. H., & Toth, N. (1981). Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya. *Nature*, *293*(5832), 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1038/293464a0

Key, A. J. M., & Lycett, S. J. (2017a). Influence of handaxe size and shape on cutting efficiency: A large-scale experiment and morphometric analysis. *Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory*, *24*(2), 514–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9276-0

Key, A. J. M., & Lycett, S. J. (2017b). Reassessing the production of handaxes versus flakes from a functional perspective. *Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences*, *9*(5), 737–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-015-0300-1

Key, A. J., Proffitt, T., Stefani, E., & Lycett, S. J. (2016). Looking at handaxes from another angle: Assessing the ergonomic and functional importance of edge form in Acheulean bifaces. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, *44*, 43–55.

Klein, R. G. (1989). Biological and behavioural perspectives on modern human origins in southern Africa. In *The human revolution: Behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans* (pp. 529–546).

Leakey, M., & Roe, D. (1995). *Olduvai Gorge: Volume 5, excavations in beds III, IV and the masek beds*. Cambridge University Press.

Lycett, S. J. (2008). Acheulean variation and selection: Does handaxe symmetry fit neutral expectations? *Journal of Archaeological Science*, *35*(9), 2640–2648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.05.002

Lycett, S. J., & von Cramon-Taubadel, N. (2008). Acheulean variability and hominin dispersals: A model-bound approach. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, *35*(3), 553–562.

Machin, A. J., Hosfield, R. T., & Mithen, S. J. (2007). Why are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, *34*(6), 883–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.008

Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1986a). *Microscopie du matériel lithique préhistorique: Traces d'utilisation, altérations naturelles, accidentelles et technologiques* [s: Exemples de Patagonie]. Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1986b). *Microscopie du matériel lithique préhistorique: Traces d'utilisation, altérations naturelles, accidentelles et technologiques: exemples de Patagonie*. CNRS Paris.

Marean, C. W., Abe, Y., Nilssen, P. J., & Stone, E. C. (2001). Estimating the minimum number of skeletal elements (MNE) in zooarchaeology: A review and a new image-analysis GIS approach. *American Antiquity*, *66*(2), 333–348.

McBrearty, S., Bishop, L., Plummer, T., Dewar, R., & Conard, N. (1998). Tools underfoot: Human trampling as an agent of lithic artifact edge modification. *American Antiquity*, *63*(1), 108–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2694779

McCall, G. S. (2005). An experimental examination of the potential function of early stone age tool technology and implications for subsistence behavior. *Lithic Technology*, *30*(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2005.11721023

McNabb, J. (2020). Further thoughts on the genetic argument for handaxes. *Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews*, *29*(5), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21809

McNabb, J., & Cole, J. (2015). The mirror cracked: Symmetry and refinement in the Acheulean handaxe. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, *3*, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.004

McPherron, S. (2016). A re-examination of the British biface data. *Lithics-the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society*, *16*, 47.

McPherron, S. P. (1999). Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: Two points make a line. *Préhistoire Européenne*, *14*, 9–32.

McPherron, S. P. (2006). What typology can tell us about Acheulian handaxe production. In *Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard* (pp. 267–286). Equinox. https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?paperId=1555268

Mitchell, J. (1995). Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: Roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. *Lithics-The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society*, *16*, 64.

Mitchell, J. (2016). Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: Roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. *Lithics-The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society*, *16*, 64.

Moncel, M.-H. (1995). Biface et outil-biface du Paléolithique moyen ancien: Réflexion à partir des sites d'Ardèche-Orgnac 3 et Payre. *Paléo*, *7*(1), 157–169.

Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Courcimaut, G., Voinchet, P., & Bahain, J.-J. (2020). La Noira site (Centre, France) and the technological behaviours and skills of the earliest Acheulean in Western Europe between 700 and 600 ka. *Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology*, *3*(3), 255–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-020-00049-2

Moncel, M.-H., Despriée, J., Voinchet, P., Tissoux, H., Moreno, D., Bahain, J.-J., Courcimault, G., & Falguères, C. (2013). Early evidence of Acheulean settlement in northwestern Europe—La Noira site, a 700 000 year-old occupation in the center of France. *PLoS One*, *8*(11), Article e75529. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075529

Moncel, M.-H., García-Medrano, P., Despriée, J., Arnaud, J., Voinchet, P., & Bahain, J.-J. (2021). Tracking behavioral persistence and innovations during the Middle Pleistocene in Western Europe. Shift in occupations between 700 and 450 ka at la Noira site (Centre, France). *Journal of Human Evolution*, *156*, Article 103009.

Murray, J. K. (2017). *Exploring handaxe function at Shishan Marsh-1: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches using the edge damage distribution method* [PhD Thesis]. https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/1828/8462/1/Murray_John_MA_2017.pdf

Mussi, M., Mendez-Quintas, E., Barboni, D., Bocherens, H., Bonnefille, R., Briatico, G., Geraads, D., Melis, R. T., Panera, J., & Pioli, L. (2023). A surge in obsidian exploitation more than 1.2 million years ago at Simbiro III (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia). *Nature Ecology & Evolution*, *7*(3), 337–346.

Odell, G. H. (1981). The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: Some testable hypotheses. *Journal of Field Archaeology*, *8*(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346981791505120

Odell-Vereecken, F., & Odell, G. H. (1980). Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by 'blind tests': The low-power approach. *Journal of Field Archaeology*, *7*(1). https://www.tandf online.com/doi/abs/10.1179/009346980791505545

Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Rodríguez, X. P., de Lombera-Hermida, A., García-Antón, M. D., García-Medrano, P., Peña, L., Menéndez,
L., Navazo, M., & Terradillos, M. (2013). The early and middle pleistocene technological record from Sierra de Atapuerca (Bur-gos, Spain). *Quaternary International*, **295**, 138–167.

Ollé, A., & Vergès, J. M. (2014). The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting stone tool microwear. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **48**(C), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.028

Ollé, A., Vergès, J. M., Peña, L., Aranda, V., Canals, A., & Carbonell, E. (2015). A microwear analysis of handaxes from Santa Ana Cave (Cáceres, Extremadura, Spain). *International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis: Use-Wear 2012* (pp. 270). http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QPOmBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA270&dq=%22as+on+simply+technological+deduc-tions,+the+more+direct+approaches%22+%22to+their+more+characteristic+classes+of+stone%22+%22the+karstic+system+known+as+El+Calerizo+de+C%C3%A1ceres%22+&ots=w--VhE4ozJ&sig=Epb2gL98l3oNMr6AiDGiHws34wQ

Parfitt, S. A., Ashton, N. M., Lewis, S. G., Abel, R. L., Coope, G. R., Field, M. H., Gale, R., Hoare, P. G., Larkin, N. R., Lewis, M. D., Karloukovski, V., Maher, B. A., Peglar, S. M., Preece, R. C., Whittaker, J. E., & Stringer, C. B. (2010). Early pleistocene human occupation at the edge of the boreal zone in northwest Europe. *Nature*, **466**(7303), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09117

Parkinson, J. A., Plummer, T., & Hartstone-Rose, A. (2015). Characterizing felid tooth marking and gross bone damage patterns using GIS image analysis: An experimental feeding study with large felids. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **80**, 114–134.

Parkinson, J. A., Plummer, T. W., & Bose, R. (2014). A GIS-based approach to documenting large canid damage to bones. *Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology*, **409**, 57–71.

Parkinson, J. A., Plummer, T. W., Oliver, J. S., & Bishop, L. C. (2022). Meat on the menu: GIS spatial distribution analysis of bone surface damage indicates that Oldowan hominins at Kanjera South, Kenya had early access to carcasses. *Quaternary Science Reviews*, **277**, Article 107314.

Phillipson, L. (1997). Edge modification as an indicator of function and handedness of Acheulian handaxes from Kariandusi, Kenya. *Lithic Technology*, **22**(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.1997.11754541

Plisson, H., & Van Gijn, A. (1989). La tracéologie: Mode d'emploi. *L'anthropologie*, **93**(3), 631–642.

Posnansky, M. (1959). 61. Some functional considerations on the handaxe. *Man*, **59**, 42–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2796175

Prat, S. (2018). First hominin settlements out of Africa. Tempo and dispersal mode: Review and perspectives. *Comptes Rendus Palevol*, **17**(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2016.04.009

Preece, R. C., Gowlett, Ja. J., Parfitt, S. A., Bridgland, D. R., & Lewis, S. G. (2006). Humans in the Hoxnian: Habitat, context and fire use at Beeches Pit, West Stow, Suffolk, UK. *Journal of Quaternary Science*, **21**(5), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1043

Prost, D. C. (1989). *Enlèvements accidentels, enlèvements d'utilisation et de retouche sur les outils de pierre taillée* [These de doctorat, Paris 10]. https://www.theses.fr/1989PA100060

Pryor, J. H. (1988). The effects of human trample damage on lithics: A consideration of crucial variables. *Lithic Technology*, **17**(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.1988.11754525

Renfrew, C., & Morley, I. (2009). *Becoming human: Innovation in prehistoric material and spiritual culture*. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=T3PeaZd-esQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA27&dq=Renfrew+%26+Morley+2009+acheulean&ots=d4W2MZ6cvt&sig=RYTpexOFFym217xte0j6JM5KVNs

Roche, H. (2005). From simple flaking to shaping: Stone knapping evolution among early hominids. *Stone knapping: The necessary conditions for a uniquely hominid behaviour* (pp. 35–48).

Roe, D. A. (2003). An overview, with some thoughts on the study of bifaces. *Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies* (pp. 273).

Roebroeks, W., Van Gijn, A., Van De Velde, P., & ARPS, C. S. (1988). From find scatters to early hominid behaviour: A study of Middle Palaeolithic riverside settlements at Maastricht-Belvédère (The Netherlands). *Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia*, **21**. https://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=6561528

Rosenberg, D., Shimelmitz, R., Gluhak, T. M., & Assaf, A. (2015). The geochemistry of basalt handaxes from the lower palaeolithic site of Maʻayan Baruch, Israel—a perspective on raw material selection. *Archaeometry*, **57**(S1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12096

Rots, V., & Van Peer, P. (2006). Early evidence of complexity in lithic economy: Core-axe production, hafting and use at late middle Pleistocene site 8-B-11, Sai Island (Sudan). *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **33**(3), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.08.002

Sano, K., Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., Koyabu, D., Endo, H., Sasaki, T., Asfaw, B., & Suwa, G. (2020). A 1.4-million-year-old bone handaxe from Konso, Ethiopia, shows advanced tool technology in the early acheulean. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, **117**(31), 18393–18400. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006370117

Schick, K. D., & Toth, N. P. (1994). *Making silent stones speak: Human evolution and the dawn of technology*. Simon and Schuster.

Schoville, B. J. (2010). Frequency and distribution of edge damage on Middle Stone Age lithic points, Pinnacle Point 13B, South Africa. *Journal of Human Evolution*, **59**(3–4), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.07.015

Semenov, S. A. (1964). *Prehistoric technology: An experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear*. Cory & Adams.

Sharon, G. (2010). Large flake acheulian. *Quaternary International*, **223**, 226–233.

Shea, J. J. (2017). Occasional, obligatory, and habitual stone tool use in hominin evolution. *Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews*, **26**(5), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21547

Shea, J. J., & Klenck, J. D. (1993). An experimental investigation of the effects of trampling on the results of lithic microwear analysis. *Journal of Archaeological Science*, **20**(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1993.1013

Shen, G., Michel, V., Despriée, J., Han, F., & Granger, D. E. (2012). Datation d'enfouissement par 26Al/10Be et son application préliminaire à des sites du Paléolithique Inférieur en Chine et en France. *L'Anthropologie*, **116**(1), 1–11.

Shipton, C., & Clarkson, C. (2015). Handaxe reduction and its influence on shape: An experimental test and archaeological case study. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, **3**, 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.06.029

Shipton, C., Clarkson, C., & Cobden, R. (2019). Were Acheulean bifaces deliberately made symmetrical? Archaeological and experimental evidence. *Cambridge Archaeological Journal*, **29**(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095977431800032X

Shipton, C., & White, M. (2020). Handaxe types, colonization waves, and social norms in the British Acheulean. *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, **31**, Article 102352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102352

Sigaut, F. (1991). Un couteau ne sert pas à couper mais en coupant. Structure, fonctionnement et fonction dans l'analyse des objets.
25 *Ans d'études Technologiques En Préhistoire: Bilan et Perspectives*, 21-34.

Simão, J. (2002). Tools evolve: The artificial selection and evolution of Paleolithic stone tools. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 25(3), 419–419.

Solodenko, N., Zupancich, A., Cesaro, S. N., Marder, O., Lemorini, C., & Barkai, R. (2015). Fat residue and use-wear found on Acheulian biface and scraper associated with butchered elephant remains at the site of Revadim, Israel. *PLoS One*, 10(3), Article e0118572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118572

Sorensen, A. C., Claud, E., & Soressi, M. (2018). Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis. *Scientific Reports*, 8(1), Article 10065. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28342-9

Stout, D. (2011). Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 366(1567), 1050–1059. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0369

Stringer, C. (2012). The status of *Homo heidelbergensis* (Schoetensack 1908). *Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews*, 21(3), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21311

Toth, N., & Schick, K. (2009). The oldowan: The tool making of early hominins and chimpanzees compared. *Annual Review of Anthropology*, 38(1), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annur ev-anthro-091908-164521

Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., & Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. *Journal of Field Archaeology*, 1(1-2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1179/jfa.1974.1.1-2.171

Unrath, G., Owen, L. R., van Gijn, A., Moss, E. H., Plisson, H., & Vaughan, P. (1984). An evaluation of use-wear studies: A multi-analyst approach in technical aspects of microwear studies on stone tools. *Early Man News*, 9–11, 117–176.

Van Gijn, A. (1986). Fish polish, fact and fiction. In *Early Man News* (pp. 9–11).

Vaughan, P. C. (1981). Lithic microwear experimentation and the func-tional analysis of a lower magdalenian stone tool assemblage. *Dissertations Available from ProQuest*, 1–645.

Viallet, C. (2016). Bifaces used for percussion? Experimental approach to percussion marks and functional analysis of the bifaces from Terra Amata (Nice, France). *Quaternary International*, 409, 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.08.068

Voinchet, P., Despriée, J., Tissoux, H., Falguères, C., Bahain, J.-J., Gageonnet, R., Dépont, J., & Dolo, J.-M. (2010). ESR chronology

of alluvial deposits and first human settlements of the Middle Loire Basin (Region Centre, France). *Quaternary Geochronology*, 5(2), 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2009.03.005

Wagner, G. A., Maul, L. C., Löscher, M., & Schreiber, H. D. (2011). Mauer – the type site of *Homo heidelbergensis*: Palaeoenvironment and age. *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 30(11), 1464–1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.01.013

Wei, G., He, C., Hu, Y., Yu, K., Chen, S., Pang, L., Wu, Y., Huang, W., & Yuan, W. (2017). First discovery of a bone handaxe in China. *Quaternary International*, 434, 121–128.

Wenban-Smith, F., Gamble, C., & Apsimon, A. (2000). The lower palaeolithic site at Red Barns, Portchester, Hampshire: Bifacial technology, raw material quality, and the organisation of archaic behaviour. *Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society*, 66, 209–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X0000181X

White, M. J. (1998). On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in southern Britain. *Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society*, 64, 15–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00002164

Wynn, T. (1995). Handaxe enigmas. *World Archaeology*, 27(1), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1995.9980290

Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 25(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140 525X02000079

Wynn, T. G., & Coolidge, F. L. (2017). *Cognitive models in Palaeolithic archaeology*. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=hb1LDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Wynn+and+Coolidge,+2017&ots=ZovpW BXMZv&sig=s4ZkRAyXDKx-F7qxHNK7F3y9Jmw

Wynn, T., & Tierson, F. (1990). Regional Comparison of the Shapes of Later Acheulean Handaxes. *American Anthropologist*, 92(1), 73–84. JSTOR.

Zupancich, A., Shemer, M., & Barkai, R. (2021). Biface use in the lower paleolithic Levant: First insights from late Acheulean Revadim and Jaljulia (Israel). *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 36, Article 102877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102877

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.