Beyond Courtship: The Practical Truth Behind Acheulean Handaxes
For over a million years, our hominin ancestors created and used one of prehistory's most iconic objects. Discover why their purpose was more practical than romantic.
The Acheulean Handaxe Enigma
For over a million years, our hominin ancestors created and used one of prehistory's most iconic objects: the Acheulean handaxe. These teardrop-shaped stone tools, flaked on both sides, are found by the thousands across continents. For decades, a captivating theory has attempted to explain their often-noted symmetry and refinement: that they were the prehistoric equivalent of a peacock's tail, made by males to display their skill and genetic fitness to potential mates.
1.7 Million Years
Duration of Acheulean technology
3 Continents
Africa, Europe, and Asia
Multifunctional
Butchering, digging, woodworking
The Allure of the Sexual Selection Theory
The sexual selection theory for handaxes, most famously proposed by Kohn and Mithen, is undeniably intriguing. It suggests that the symmetry and fine craftsmanship of many handaxes went far beyond functional needs 1 . Just as a bowerbird builds an elaborate bower to attract a female, the theory posits that hominin males crafted exquisite handaxes to demonstrate their cognitive ability, physical dexterity, and access to resources 1 .
This "costly signaling" would show a female that the maker possessed superior genes and was a good provider. Some have even extended the theory, suggesting that discarding handaxes after use could have signaled an awareness of hygiene—avoiding pathogen-ridden biological residues—further boosting the maker's appeal 1 . In this view, a well-made handaxe was not just a tool; it was a prehistoric status symbol, a "Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible" of the Lower Palaeolithic 1 .
Key Concept
Costly Signaling: Behaviors or traits that are energetically expensive to produce, serving as honest indicators of an individual's quality.
Peacock's Tail Analogy
Like the peacock's elaborate tail, handaxe symmetry was proposed as a fitness indicator that could not be faked, requiring genuine skill to produce.
Status Symbol
The theory positioned handaxes as prehistoric luxury items, communicating social status and reproductive fitness to potential mates.
The Case Against: A Multitude of Flaws
Despite its appeal, the sexual selection hypothesis faces significant criticisms from archaeologists and anthropologists who point to a lack of direct evidence and several logical inconsistencies.
Perhaps the most significant problem is the absence of any direct archaeological proof. As scholars Nowell and Chang have argued, there is no evidence that females actually judged males on handaxe quality 1 . The archaeological record is silent on whether handaxe craftsmanship influenced mating choices, a core requirement for the sexual selection theory to hold.
Critics argue that far simpler, more parsimonious explanations exist for handaxe morphology. The primary function of a handaxe was as a heavy-duty cutting tool. Studies of wear patterns confirm their use in butchering game, digging, and cutting wood or other plant materials 5 .
| Criticism | Key Argument | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Evidence | No direct proof that handaxe quality influenced mate choice. | Silence in the archaeological record on this link 1 . |
| Functional Imperatives | Shape is better explained by practical use and ergonomics. | Use-wear patterns from butchery and woodworking; experimental tests on "giant" handaxes for digging 5 7 . |
| Reduction Intensity | Much morphological variation is a byproduct of reuse and resharpening, not initial design. | Experiments showing shape changes from resharpening; correlation between scar density and shape in archaeological assemblages 8 . |
| Diverse Skill Investment | Skill level in handaxes varies with context and practical goals, not a uniform display signal. | Quantification of 3D skill metrics (sinuosity, asymmetry) linked to blank size and site function 4 . |
Supporting Evidence for Practical Functions
Edge Geometry and Use-Wear
Advanced 3D analysis of handaxe edges reveals incredible variability tailored to function. Tools often have multiple distinct sharp edges suitable for different tasks, alongside blunt portions designed for secure grasping 2 . This complex, functional geometry is difficult to reconcile with a purely symbolic role.
The "Giant" Handaxe Puzzle
The occasional discovery of "giant" handaxes, some over 25 cm long, poses a particular problem for the courtship theory. Recent experimental studies tested these large tools for slicing, scraping, and digging. Volunteers found them awkward and ineffective for slicing and scraping, but excellent for digging due to their weight and pointed tips 7 .
Reduction and Resharpening
Handaxes were not static objects; they were constantly resharpened and reworked throughout their use-life. Experimental studies demonstrate that repeated resharpening dramatically alters a handaxe's original shape. This indicates that much of the variability we see is the accumulated effect of practical maintenance and reuse 8 .
| Experiment Focus | Methodology | Key Findings & Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Reduction & Resharpening 8 | Pre-knapped handaxes were retouched by knappers using different protocols (tip, sides, etc.). Shape was measured after each episode. | Handaxe shape changed predictably based on resharpening location (e.g., sides → elongation). Conclusion: Many archaeological shapes are likely the result of use-life maintenance, not intentional "sexy" design. |
| "Giant" Handaxe Function 7 | Volunteers used normal-sized and giant handaxes for slicing, scraping, and digging tasks. Efficiency and user preference were recorded. | Giant handaxes were inefficient for slicing/scraping but effective for digging. Conclusion: Their size can be explained by a specialized practical function, negating the need for a purely social explanation. |
| 3D Edge Variability 2 | Computational 3D analysis of handaxe edges from the Southern Levant automatically measured edge angle, concavity, and segmentation. | Found marked, previously overlooked variability in edges, with many tools having multiple functional edges. Conclusion: This complex, functional geometry is at odds with a simple, uniform display signal. |
Skill Investment in Handaxe Production
Research shows that skill investment varied greatly, with most handaxes made for practical, everyday tasks rather than display 4 .
Alternative Explanations for Handaxe Morphology
Reduction Intensity
The final form is a result of repeated resharpening and reuse over the tool's life, not just its initial design. A pointed handaxe becoming more squat and oval after multiple resharpenings of its tip 8 .
Raw Material Constraints
The size, shape, and quality of the locally available stone (e.g., flint, quartzite) heavily influence the final product. A small, crudely made handaxe not due to lack of skill, but because the raw material nodule was small 4 .
Social Learning & Cultural Tradition
Techniques and styles were passed down through generations, leading to regional and temporal variations that reflect cultural identity. Consistent morphological differences between handaxes from different geographic areas over long periods 6 .
Evolution of Handaxe Understanding
Initial Discoveries
First recognized as human-made tools; viewed primarily as weapons or hunting implements.
Functional Analysis
Systematic study of use-wear patterns reveals multifunctional nature: butchery, woodworking, digging.
Sexual Selection Hypothesis
Kohn and Mithen propose handaxes as fitness indicators and courtship displays.
Technological & Contextual Approaches
Advanced 3D analysis, experimental archaeology, and reduction studies provide evidence for practical explanations of handaxe form.
Rethinking Handaxes: A Window into the Pragmatic Hominin Mind
Moving beyond the sexual selection theory allows for a richer, more complex understanding of our ancestors. The handaxe emerges not as a one-dimensional courtship prop, but as a multifunctional, pragmatic tool central to survival. Its variability reflects a flexible and strategic mind capable of solving a wide range of problems—from butchering a carcass to digging for tubers to efficiently managing stone resources.
The occasional highly symmetrical or giant handaxe may still have held social significance, perhaps as a marker of group identity or a signal of a skilled knapper within a social network 6 7 . However, the core driver of their form and variation was likely the practical challenges of Pleistocene life. The handaxe's true legacy is its testament to the burgeoning human capacity for technical problem-solving, planning, and the adaptive flexibility that would eventually pave the way for our species' success.
Cognitive Implications
The practical explanation aligns with evidence for strategic planning, foresight, and problem-solving abilities in early hominins.
The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Concepts in Handaxe Analysis
3D Scanning & Modeling: Creates a high-resolution digital model of an artifact, allowing for precise and non-destructive analysis of its form and surface 2 4 .
Use-Wear Analysis: The microscopic study of polishes, striations, and edge damage on a tool to determine what materials it was used on (e.g., meat, hide, wood) 5 .
Experimental Replication: The process of recreating ancient tools using period-appropriate techniques. This helps archaeologists understand the manufacturing process, how tools were used, and how their form changes over time 7 8 .
Scar Density Index (SDI): A metric for measuring reduction intensity. It is calculated by dividing the number of flake scars on a tool by its surface area, providing an independent measure of how much it has been reworked 8 .