Prehistoric Britons may have made giant stone axes to show off

More than 300,000 years ago, hominins in Britain were crafting huge, skilfully shaped handaxes whose primary purpose may have been for showing off.

Giant ficrons, weighing up to 3 kilograms and measuring up to 30 centimetres long, were fragile and impractical to wield – but tricky and time-consuming to knap. Accomplished stone tool-makers thus probably fashioned these rare knives not for cutting but as a sort of prehistoric status symbol, says Malaika Standley Barrow at University College London.

“These giant ficrons really are lovely, and it seems they’re meant to visually stand out and be appreciable to other group members as something unusual and interesting to look at,” she says. “So there’s definitely some prowess or something – or maybe a creation of social bonds through the act of doing this together.”

Ficrons are Stone Age handaxes carved from flint with curved sides, rounded bases and remarkably pointed tips. Named for the sharp iron tips of poles once used to propel French boats through shallow water, these tools have appeared in archaeological records in Britain since the late 19th century, particularly along the Thames and its tributaries.

Most ficrons are similar in size to other handaxes from this period, measuring about 8 to 15 centimetres long, and probably worked as cutting or butchering knives. But a few stand-out ficrons exceed two or even three times the usual length and 10 times the weight – and scientists don’t know what purpose they might have served.

To address that question, Standley Barrow and her colleagues examined 817 ficrons and other handaxes from seven archaeological sites across southern Britain, stretching across the Thames valley, Kent, Hampshire and Devon. Among those tools were seven giant ficrons measuring at least 22 centimetres long.

3D scans and measurements revealed that six of the seven giant ficrons had extremely exaggerated proportions compared with smaller handaxes from the same sites. The giant handaxes also tended to be more symmetrical and have straighter edges than smaller versions, suggesting they were crafted with more skill and precision. This means these larger axes weren’t simply scaled-up versions of standard ficrons, but probably deliberately crafted to be visually distinct, says Standley Barrow.

The researchers then commissioned experienced flintknappers to make 10 giant and 10 normal-sized replica ficrons from British flint. Next, they had 20 students use the replicas to cut through 10 pieces of rope attached to metal frames. Each student completed the task first with an ordinary-sized ficron, followed by a giant one.

Knappers like James Dilley at Ancient Craft in Norfolk, UK, found the giant ficrons particularly challenging to make, especially the fine tip. “You have to think of the flint as being very much like a piece of glass,” he says. “One misplaced strike and it will snap in half, and all that work has gone to waste. You need a lot more skill and experience to make one of these.” On average, knapping a giant ficron took about 45 minutes, compared with about 20 to 30 for smaller ficrons, he says.

Yet there seemed to be no practical benefits for this extra work: on average, the students took 22 per cent more time cutting the rope with giant ficrons, often resorting to using two hands to manoeuvre a heavy knife they found difficult to control. For butchering or digging, pressure on the blade would probably break the tip quite easily, Standley Barrow adds.

Even so, it’s possible the blade could have been used both ceremoniously and practically for delivering a killing blow to a wounded prey, known as the coup de grâce, she and her colleagues argue.

Luke Dale at Durham University, UK, finds that concept particularly compelling. The giant ficrons could have had limited practical use in a culturally important role and hold a prominent social function, he says.

The age of the tools suggests they were probably made by early Neanderthals. The exquisite craftsmanship of these objects points to an interest in aesthetics and cultural tradition, adding to the evidence that our ancient ancestors were more sophisticated than people often consider them to be.

“These were clearly intelligent archaic humans who could use technology to survive, and presumably had very recognisable social interactions with each other,” says Dale.