the use of elephant bones for making acheulian handaxes: a fresh look at old bones

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

The use of elephant bones for making Acheulian handaxes: A freshlook at old bones

Katia Zutovski*, Ran BarkaiDepartment of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:AcheulianHandaxesBifacesBone toolsElephantsCosmology and Symbolism

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Zutovski).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.0331040-6182/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Zutovski, KQuaternary International (2015), http://dx.d

a b s t r a c t

In this study, we examine Lower Paleolithic archaeological assemblages that contain bifaces (handaxes)made of elephant bones from Africa, Europe, and the Levant. The aims of this paper are to summarize theavailable evidence of elephant bone tools manufacturing in the Acheulian, and to analyze patterns ofelephant bone tool industry compared to stone tool industries and other taxa bone industries. We willfocus on the association between stone and elephant bone bifaces at several Acheulian sites, and willpresent a new perspective on the connections between bifaces made of the two materials at these sites.Based on the long-term interaction between humans and elephants in Paleolithic times, the humandependence on elephant meat and fat for survival, and many lines of resemblance between elephantsand humans, we propose that Lower Paleolithic elephant bone bifaces were not manufactured solely forfunctional purposes, and suggest that there were some cosmological, cultural and symbolic propertiesreflected in the production of Acheulian bifaces from elephant bones.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

“… The hunt, and particularly the big-game hunt, is surrounded byrituals. Because the elephant is considered the acme of game ani-mals, there is a rich symbolism associated with, as the Baka say,this ‘really enormous beast’” (Joiris, 1996; pp. 258).

1. Introduction

The Acheulian is the main cultural complex of the LowerPaleolithic (LP) period in the Old World. Acheulian first appearanceis dated to approximately 1.7 million years ago in Africa, charac-terizing the archaeological record until roughly 200 thousand yearsago (e.g., Bar-Yosef, 2006; Goren-Inbar, 2011; Beyene et al., 2013).Hominin remains are rarely represented at Acheulian sites. How-ever, Homo erectus, sensu lato, is likely associated with the Acheu-lian cultural complex (e.g., Dennell, 2009; pp. 438; Bar-Yosef andBelmaker, 2011; Barkai and Gopher, 2013). LP diet was basedmainly on the consumption of large (e.g., elephant, rhinoceros,hippopotamus) and medium (e.g., horse, cattle, deer) animals (e.g.,Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990; Anzidei, 2001; Biddittu and Celletti,2001; Mania and Mania, 2003; Suwa et al., 2003; Anzidei et al.,

reserved.

., Barkai, R., The use of elephoi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.0

2012; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Sacc�a, 2012a), and vegetal food(Goren-Inbar, 2011 and references therein).

The Acheulian lithic technology is characterized by the pro-duction and use of flakes and flake tools. However, the hallmarkof Acheulian technology is considered to be the Acheulian bifa-cial tools (biface/handaxe/Large Cutting Tool, see Sharon, 2007,2009, 2010; but also Barkai, 2009). Bifaces are, in most cases,relatively large items, shaped by extensive bifacial knapping, thatreflects manual dexterity, symmetry and prolonged useelife cy-cles (Lycett and Gowlett, 2008; Machin, 2009; Sharon, 2009,2010) (Figs. 1e3). Bifaces are usually used as a Fossil Directeur(type fossils e classes of lithic artefacts associated with specifictime periods and archaeological cultures) for the Acheulian cul-tural complex, regardless of the fact that modern research hasstrongly indicated the variability and complexity of Acheulianlithic technology (e.g., Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990; Brühl, 2003;Marder et al., 2006; Naldini et al., 2009; Anzidei et al., 2012;Agam et al., 2014).

Acheulian lithic technology shows very little noticeable changesand a rather low level of innovation throughout the ca. 1.5 millionyears of its existence (but see Nowell and White, 2010). As a result,some scholars consider the Acheulian cultural complex as a periodof cultural stagnation (e.g., Somel et al., 2013). However, lookingfrom another perspective, we believe that the Acheulian techno-complex is better characterized by its remarkable adaptive

ant bones for making Acheulian handaxes: A fresh look at old bones,1.033

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.033



Fig. 1. An Acheulian flint biface from the site of Revadim. Area B north, CT78d, layer B1.

Fig. 2. An Acheulian flint biface from the site of Revadim. Area B north, CS78c, layer B1.

Fig. 3. An Acheulian flint biface from the site of Revadim. Area B sough, CC65d, layer B1.

K. Zutovski, R. Barkai / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e122

properties, by far a durable and successful mode of adaptation(Barkai and Gopher, 2013).

The archaeological record reveals that LP Acheulian earlyhumans exploited elephants by hunting and/or by collecting car-casses apparently for meat and fat consumption, and possibly forextracting bone marrow. This pattern of behavior and adaptationwas practiced over three continents of the Old World for hundredsof thousands of years (e.g., Leakey, 1971; Goren-Inbar et al., 1994;Mania and Mania, 2003; Ben-Dor et al., 2011; Anzidei et al., 2012;

Please cite this article in press as: Zutovski, K., Barkai, R., The use of elephQuaternary International (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.0

Rabinovich et al., 2012; Sacc�a, 2012a,b). See also Rodríguez et al.(2012) for detailed analysis of European food web structures dur-ing the Early Pleistocene, suggesting new specialized megafaunapredator exploiting an empty niche.

However, it seems that in some cases Acheulian homininsexploited elephant bones beyond the immediate nutritional realms(Barkai and Gopher, 2013). In some remarkable cases, elephantbones, mainly limb bones, were used for the manufacture of arti-facts that closely resemble Acheulian stone bifaces (Anzidei, 2001;


K. Zutovski, R. Barkai / Quaternary International xxx (2015) 1e12 3

Dobosi, 2001; Mania and Mania, 2003; Gaudzinski et al., 2005;Boschian and Sacc�a, 2010, 2014; Costa, 2010; Anzidei et al., 2012;Echassoux, 2012; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Sacc�a, 2012a, b; Beyeneet al., 2013). We have not conducted any technological analysis ofthe bone bifaces from the presented sites, and our interpretation ofthose items as bifacialy flaked bones is based on published accountsand available figures.

The stone LP bifaces have been a focal issue of research duringthe last century (e.g., Kleindienst, 1962; Leakey, 1971; Ashton andWhite, 2003; Sharon, 2007, 2009; Lycett, 2008; Lycett andGowlett, 2008; Goren-Inbar, 2011; Sharon et al., 2011; Beyeneet al., 2013). The purpose of bifaces manufacture is long debated, aswell as its probable cultural and social meaning (e.g., Kohn andMithen, 1999; Pope et al., 2006; Machin et al., 2007; Gowlett,2011; Hodgson, 2011; Spikins, 2012). It is our working hypothesisthat the significance of Acheulian stone bifaces might be relevantfor understanding the elephant bone bifaces as well, and thus wewould like to discuss the bone bifaces in light of the plethora of dataand interpretation related to Acheulian stone bifaces.

1.1. Acheulian stone bifaces

Acheulian stone bifaces were defined by Kleindienst (1962, pp.85) as “ … Characterized by a cutting edge around the entirecircumference of the tool, or more rarely around the entire circum-ference with the exception of the butt”. They are commonly bifacialyflaked along one central axis, with a pronounced symmetricalprofile, drop or pear-shaped, with sharp edges converging toward atip. They appear in a variety of sizes, being commonly made oncobbles or on large (>10 cm) flakes, from different kinds of lithicraw materials, throughout the whole Old World, for ca. 1.5 millionyears (Sharon, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010).

The Acheulian toolkit is best known for its bifaces, but is actuallydominated by flakes of varied sizes (Lycett and Gowlett, 2008;Barkai, 2009; Machin, 2009; Sharon, 2009, 2010; Agam et al.,2014). In fact, the excavation of some Acheulian sites have notyielded bifaces at all, and game animals (megafauna and smallertaxa) were most probably processed with other flaked stone im-plements, rather than stone bifaces (Watanabe, 1985; Anzidei et al.,1999; Zaidner et al., 2010; Fluck, 2011; Anzidei et al., 2012). Thiswas one of the reasons for scholars to wonder why early humansinvested so much effort in symmetry of stone bifaces and theirperipheral shaping if it is possible to cut and disarticulate animalswith chopping tools, flakes or other shaped items (e.g., Kohn andMithen, 1999). This focal issue regarding the function and signifi-cance of Acheulian stone bifaces is in long debate, and after acentury of research consensus was not reached. Some scholarsclaim that bifaces were intended to carry out specific dismem-bering and butchery tasks, and thus were highly useable tools formanipulating carcasses of large mammals (Jones, 1981; Mitchell,1995; Machin et al., 2007). The very few micro wear studies ofAcheulian bifaces (Keeley, 1977, 1980; pp. 160e170, 1992; Mitchell,1997; Solodenko et al., submitted for publication) support thisinterpretation. Keeley (1980, pp. 160e170) also discusses thecontextual evidence for bifaces as general multi-purpose toolsoften used for butchery. Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. (2001) pre-sented residue analysis results compatible with wood workingactivities. Several scholars proposed that bifaces were used forhunting large mammals (O'Brien, 1981; Calvin, 1993; Wayman,2010; Cannell, 2014 but see; Whittaker and McCall, 2001). Earlierarguments have proposed that bifacial tools were primarily cores;that some were hafted rather than hand-held; or that they weresunk in the ground as stationary anvil-like tools (Whittaker and


McCall, 2001 and references therein). Others, however, find thisover-investment in the aesthetic aspect very conspicuous, and thusseveral theories referring symbolic and social meaning of thosetools were raised (Kohn and Mithen, 1999; Pope et al., 2006;Gowlett, 2011; Hodgson, 2011; Spikins, 2012). Gowlett (2011)studied the metric attributes of Acheulian stone bifaces andreached the conclusion that preference for particular proportionswas likely comparable in earlier Homo to those observable inmodern humans. Regarding the symmetry of bifacial tools, Wynn(2002 and references therein) added that bifaces were the firsthuman made (stone) tools that exhibited an imposition of shape,and “ … almost certainly did exist as a category in the mind of H.erectus”. Kohn and Mithen (1999) raised a hypothesis according towhich bifaces were “products of sexual selection”, and served asindicators of the potential benefits of their makers bymeans of highquality genes, good health, and intellect (but see Nowell and Chang,2009). Pope et al. (2006) suggested that in addition to symmetry,there may have been a preference for the manufacture of bifaceswith the ‘Golden Section’ proportions (in mathematics, two quan-tities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio oftheir sum to the larger of the two quantities (Dunlap, 1997)), andthat the Acheulian material culture might have represented a devel-opment of semiotic perceptions. Hodgson (2011) links betweenaesthetic awareness and social abilities in the intraparietal sulcus ofthe brain and claimed that the “ … exacting symmetry of laterAcheulian handaxes was most likely linked to a proto-aesthetic sense,or … this may also be linked to quasi-ritualistic tendencies”. Spikins(2012) proposed that bifaces straightened social bonds being in-dicators of good will, self-control and trust.

Several stone bifaces exhibit unique traits and some wereretrieved from extraordinary contexts (Harrod, 2014). Forinstance, a thick elongated heart-shaped brown chert biface withan “eyespot” decoration (Despri�ee et al., 2009) from LaMorandi�ere, Loire-et-Cher, Middle Pleistocene France, and a flintbiface with embodied bivalve mollusk in the middle of the tool,on its weathered portion, from West Tofts, Norfolk (England). Theknapper likely noticed the fossil before the selection of the flintblock and tried to avoid knapping this part of the tool (Oakley,1981). A biface with embodied echinoid fossil, commonlyknown as shepherd's crown, located in the middle of the tool,was found at Swanscombe (Oakley, 1981), and a remarkable red-brown finely flaked quartzite biface was retrieved from a specialcontext at the Middle Pleistocene human skeletons deposit at thesite of Sima de los Huesos, Spain (Carbonell et al., 2003). Inaddition, several giant bifaces were retrieved from other LowerPaleolithic sites (Lacaille, 1940; Wenban-Smith, 2004; Barkaiet al., 2013). For instance, in one specific case from England, abiface was described as 307 mm long and more than 1400 g inweight, and highly invested in design (Wenban-Smith, 2004). Inanother case, the Furze Platt biface from Maidenhead, England,was 395 mm long and 3400 g in weight (Lacaille, 1940; Hodgson,2011). A practical functional use of those extra-large bifaces ishighly questionable (Hodgson, 2011). Having said all that, itshould be stressed that for approximately 1.5 million yearsAcheulian hominins used different raw materials with distinctknapping characteristics, and applied a broad range of techniquesfor detaching large flakes, but still, astonishingly, arrived at verysimilar end result e bifaces (Sharon, 2009, 2010).

In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence to support the claimsof the Acheulian stone bifaces as mostly practical butchering anddismembering implements (see Keeley, 1980), while their use inother tasks such as woodworking is less commonly documented.However, by the same veins, we believe that these highly invested,


Fig. 4. A biface made on an elephant bone from the site of Revadim.


extraordinary durable and significantly efficient items were alsoembedded with cultural, symbolic and social significance.

1.2. Acheulian bone bifaces

Lower Paleolithic Acheulian bifacialy flaked bones appear at awide geographic range, but actually represent a small scale phe-nomenon. These were found in the three continents of the OldWorld, but in small quantities and in a restricted number of sites.Those items exhibit, in many cases, a remarkable similarity to thestone bifaces (see Figs. 4e8), they were likely flaked in a similarmanner and according to similar concepts of design (Costa, 2010),and are conspicuous because of several traits that are further dis-cussed below.


2. Methodology

We would like to note that the term “Large Cutting Tools” (LCT)applied in several publications for Acheulian bifaces might be, inour view, misleading. Not all bifaces are large, and the differentuses attested by scarce use-wear studies do not allow an all-inclusive functional characterization of these artifacts (Barkai,2009). Thus we prefer to use the term Acheulian bifaces orhandaxes.

For the purpose of this study, we examined published accountsof eight Lower Paleolithic Acheulian sites (Table 1) from Africa,Europe and the Levant containing shaped elephant bones. Specialattention was given to bone bifacial tools that resemble the char-acteristic Acheulian stone bifaces.


Table 1List of Lower Paleolithic sites containing elephant bone industry examined in thisstudy.

Site Chronology Geographiclocation

References

Konso (~1.4 Ma) Ethiopian Rift Beyene et al., 2013.Fontana

Ranuccio(~450 ka) Rome region, Italy Biddittu et al., 1979; Segre and

Ascenzi, 1984; Naldini et al.,2009.

La Polledrara (340e320 ka)

Rome region, Italy Anzidei et al., 2001, 2012.

Castel diGuido

(327e260 ka)

Rome region, Italy Michel et al., 2001; Boschianand Sacc�a, 2010; Sacc�a, 2012a.

Casal de'Pazzi

MIS 7 Rome, Italy Anzidei, 2001; Anzidei et al.,2001.

V�ertessz}ol}os MIS 13 toMIS9

Tributary of theDanube, northernHungary

Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990;Dobosi, 2003.

Bilzingsleben (412e320 ka)

Thuringian Basin,Germany

Schwarcz et al., 1988; Maniaand Mania, 2003.

Revadim (500e300 kaminimumage)

About 40 km southeeast of Tel Aviv,Israel

Marder et al., 2006;Rabinovich et al., 2012.

The sites were chosen according to the available publications and the broad datasets that could be used for this particular analysis.

Table 2Stone vs. bone industry in the examined sites.

Site #Stonetools(other thanbifaces)

#Bonetools(otherthanbifaces)

#Stonebifaces

#Bonebifaces

References

Konso(~1.4 Mahorizon)

55 No dataavailable

17 1 Beyene et al., 2013.

FontanaRanuccio

44 At least 6 5 At least2

Biddittu et al.,1979; Segre andAscenzi, 1984;Biddittu andCelletti, 2001.

La Polledrara Numerousa 8 Nonereported

Nonereported

Anzidei et al.,2001; Palomboet al., 2003;Anzidei et al., 2012.

Castel diGuido

At least750

~270(Mainlymodifiedelephantbones)

74 99b Radmilli andBoschian, 1996;Anzidei, 2001;Boschian andSacc�a, 2010.

Casal de'Pazzi

1500 2 1(limestone)

Nonereported

Anzidei, 2001.

V�ertessz}ol}os ~5800 >100 3 1 Kretzoi and Dobosi,1990; Dobosi,2001.

Bilzingsleben ~30,000 No exactdata; butrelativelyhigh

At least 9 1 Brühl, 2003.

Revadim(area B)

1900 1c 87 2 Marder et al., 2006;Rabinovich et al.,2012.

a A total of 500 lithic artifacts was reported.b 18 of which were classified as preforms and 33 are rounded and bifacial in

shape, however no scars were detected. Later, yet unpublished, critical assessmentof the finds indicated that the number of bone bifaces is actually smaller thanpreviously published (Boschian and Sacc�a, 2014).

c Tools made of bones of other animals were also found, but were not publishedyet.


We have taken into account the following parameters for eachsite:

a. The characteristics of the lithic and faunal assemblages.b. The availability of lithic raw materials in close proximity to the

sites.c. The numbers of stone tools compared to bone tools.d. The numbers of bone bifaces compared to stone bifaces.e. Typological and technological similarities and differences be-

tween bone and stone bifaces.

We begin by presenting a brief description of the main featuresof the bone biface production.We then discuss and analyze the datapresented.

Table 3Metric data of bone bifaces, compared to stone bifaces.

Stone bifaceslength

Numberof stonebifacesmeasured

Bonebifaceslength

Number ofbonebifacesmeasured

References

Konso(~1.4 Mahorizon)

142.4 mmaveragelength

17 128 mmlength

1 Beyene et al.,2013.

FontanaRanuccio

150 mmaveragelengtha

2 160 mmlengtha

1 Biddittu et al.,1979; Segre andAscenzi, 1984.

La Polledrara None None None None

3. Main features of Acheulian bone biface production

3.1. Limited number of bone bifacial tools

Although not all the data is published in details and available foreach of the examined sites, as a whole, the bone bifacial tool in-dustry in the Acheulian appears in very small numbers compared toother examined stone and bone industries (Biddittu et al., 1979;Segre and Ascenzi, 1984; Biddittu and Celletti, 2001; Dobosi,2001; Brühl, 2003; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Beyene et al., 2013).As can be concluded from Table 2, stone tools numbers range fromtens to tens of thousands. The numbers of stone bifaces are rathernumerous at Revadim and Castel di Guido (henceforth CDG), butappear in much modest numbers in most of the sites presented inthis study. The bone bifaces are present in very small numbers,usually not more than one or two in most of the examined sites(except for CDG). In our view this is a negligible quantity in func-tional terms. Apart for CDG, V�ertessz}ol}os and Bilzingsleben, wherebone tool industry is rich and varied, and the category of bone toolsconsists of bones of various largemammal taxa, at all other sites thebone tool industry is dominated by the use of elephant bones.


3.2. Bone tools size

As can be deduced from Table 3, at Castel di Guido bone bifacesare rather larger than the stone bifaces, and at V�ertessz}ol}os andBilzingsleben bone bifaces are much larger than the stone ones.However, it should be taken into account that at the last two sitesstone bifaces are extremely small. At Konso, Fontana Ranuccio andRevadim bone bifaces are smaller or rather similar in size to thestone ones.

(continued on next page)


Table 3 (continued )

Stone bifaceslength

Numberof stonebifacesmeasured

Bonebifaceslength

Number ofbonebifacesmeasured

References

Anzidei et al.,1999; Palomboet al., 2003.

Castel diGuido

100e120 mm e

average ofthe majorityof bifaces

74 80e240 mmlength

80 toolslength isbetween130 and180 mm

Radmilli andBoschian, 1996.

Casal de'Pazzi

No dataavailable

None None None Anzidei andGioia, 1990;Anzidei, 2001.

V�ertessz}ol}os 22 mm e

averagelengthb

3 210 mma 1 Kretzoi andDobosi, 1990;Dobosi, 2003.

Bilzingsleben 30 to 60 mmlengthb

No dataavailable

185 mma 1 Brühl, 2003;Mania andMania, 2003;Mania andMania, 2005.

Revadim 81 mm e

averagelength

87 87 mm e

averagelength

2 Solodenko,2010;Rabinovichet al., 2012.

a Our measurements, based on published figures.b Miniature bifaces e very small bifacialy flaked items.

Table 4 (continued )

Sites Large fauna bone remains References

Mostly Palaeoloxodon antiquusand Bos primigenius bones.Stephanorhinus cf. S. hemitoechus,Equus ferus, Sus scrofa, Cervuselaphus, Bubalus murrensis andothers are represented by a fewremains.

Castel diGuido

Mainly Bos primigenius,Palaeloxodon antiquus and Equusferus bones.

Sacc�a, 2012a, b.

Casal de'Pazzi

Mainly Elephas, Bos,Hippopotamus and Cervus bones.Scarce Elephant remains.

Anzidei, 2001.

V�ertessz}ol}os Primarily Cervus elaphus, Equusand Bison, scarce Proboscidearemains.

Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990.

Bilzingsleben Paleoxodon antiquus, Dicerorhinuskirchbergensis, D. hemitoechus,Bison priscus, Cervus elaphus,Dama clactoniana, Capreolus,Equus and more.

Mania and Mania, 2003.

Revadim Domination of Palaeoloxodonantiquus, Bos primigenius andDama cf. mesopotamica.

Rabinovich et al., 2012.


3.3. Similarity in knapping techniques

The bone and stone knapping technologies seem to be rathersimilar (Stanford et al., 1981; Kretzoi and Dobosi, 1990; pp. 348;Anzidei, 2001; Dobosi, 2001; Gaudzinski et al., 2005; referencestherein; Costa, 2010), but some special procedures must have beenapplied for achieving an appropriate biface made of bone. It seemslikely that elephant bones were shaped by flaking while fresh, asfresh bones are more elastic and knapped in a relatively controlledway, while dry bones lose a large part of their fatty component, andare claimed to be less appropriate for tool manufacturing (Clark,1977; Stanford et al., 1981).

3.4. Preference for elephant bone

Clear preference for elephant bones was detected in Acheulianbone biface production. All eight examined sites contain bones ofother large taxa in significant numbers, in addition to elephantbones (Table 4). However, no biface was manufactured from othertaxa than elephant. This is regardless of the fact that bones of otherlarge mammals were flaked as well, but not as bifaces. The Konsobone bifacewas reported asmade of largemammal long bone shaft,with no specific taxa yet determined.

Table 4Main large faunal taxa (terminology according to publications) represented at thestudied sites.

Sites Large fauna bone remains References

Konso sites Mainly Bovid, Equid and Suidbones, Proboscidean remainsreported as well.

Suwa et al., 2003.

FontanaRanuccio

Palaeoloxodon antiquus,Rhinoceros sp., Hippopotamus cf.anfibius, Sus scrofa ferus, Bosprimigenius, Bison sp., Equus cf.mosbachensis and more.

Biddittu et al., 1979; Segre andAscenzi, 1984; Biddittu andCelletti, 2001.

La Polledrara Anzidei et al., 2012.


4. Results

In the cases of the Acheulian sites presented above, elephantbones received special attention, were flaked and shaped as tools,and most particularly as bifaces (handaxes). As far as the archaeo-logical evidence reveals at the moment, Lower Paleolithic homininsmanufactured bone tools, and bone bifacial tools especially, inrelatively small numbers compared to stone tools.

In the case of bifaces, bone and stone were likely flaked in asimilar manner, arriving at similar morphological results. As theAcheulian tradition of producing stone bifaces is relatively wide-spread in terms of geography and chronology, we suggest that thetransformation and application of biface production technologiesinto shaping bones is strongly related to the significant role stonebifaces played in the subsistence and culture of Acheulianhominins.

Bone bifaces were manufactured from elephant bones solely(however, the case of Konso needs further assessment), while othertaxa bones were used for the manufacture of bone tools other thanbifaces.

Bone bifaces are present only at sites where stone bifaces arepresent as well. No other case was detected at any of the studiedsites. In other words, while there are noumerous Acheulian siteswith stone bifaces which are completely devoid of bone bifaces, noAcheulian site without stone bifaces ever exhibits the presence ofelephant bone bifaces.

5. Discussion

Several Lower Paleolithic Acheulian sites clearly demonstratebutchering and processing of elephants for dietary purposes(Goren-Inbar et al., 1994; Wenban-Smith et al., 2006; Yravedraet al., 2010; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Sacc�a, 2012a). Acheulianhominins experienced long term parallel existence with elephantsand were, in our opinion, dependent on this important dietarysource for hundreds of thousands of years (Kaplan et al., 2000,2007; Ben-Dor et al., 2011; Domínguez-Rodrigo et al., 2012;Barkai and Gopher, 2013). Human diet during Lower Paleolithictimes was most probably based on a large variety of other mam-mals as well, but none of these resembles the “ideal” fat and meat


Fig. 5. A biface made on an elephant bone from the site of Fontana Ranuccio (modified after Mussi, 2005).


package offered by the consumption of elephants (Ben-Dor et al.,2011). It is most conceivable that foods from vegetal sources wereconsumed as well. However, these may have been complementaryto the main meals of meat and fat.

There seems to be a special link between bifaces and elephants,as at several sites stone bifaces were found in close associationwithprocessed elephant carcasses or elephant bones (e.g., Gaudzinskiet al., 2005; Mussi, 2005; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Sacc�a, 2012a, b;

Fig. 6. A biface made on an elephant bone from the site of Castel di Guido. Courtesy ofG. Boschian.


Beyene et al., 2013; Solodenko et al., submitted for publication).Arguments suggesting the probable use of Achuelian bifaces inheavy butchering tasks and as tools suitable for carcass dismem-bering, mostly of large mammals, clearly point in favor of suchassociation (Machin et al., 2007; Bello et al., 2009; Yravedra et al.2010; Solodenko et al., submitted for publication). A unique evi-dence came lately from Revadim site, Israel (Solodenko et al.,submitted for publication), where a combination of use wear andresidue analysis of a small flint biface revealed edge damage andpolishing related probably to hide scraping, and residue of fat tis-sues and bone, suggesting butchering activity or hide working. Thebiface was found in close association with elephant rib boneexhibiting cut marks. It is suggested that this biface was possiblyused in butchering and processing of large game carcasses, ele-phants included. Such a perspectivemight allow us to present somethoughts regardingmanufacturing bifaces out of elephant bones, orin other words, the use of butchered elephant bones in order toproduce tools that imitate the special design of the stone butch-ering tools used in the processing of elephant carcasses.

Large, mostly very large, bone flakes removed from elephantlimb bones are different than bone flakes and splinters resultingfrom bone fracturing during marrow extraction (Stanford et al.,1981; Haynes and Krasinski, 2010; Sacc�a, 2012a, b). It appearsthat early hominins intentionally produced large flakes of elephantlimb bones in order to produce bone bifaces (Stanford et al., 1981;Haynes and Krasinski, 2010; Sacc�a, 2012a, b). It should be kept inmind that the production of large stone flakes for shaping Acheu-lian stone bifaces was routinely practiced during Lower Paleolithictimes (e.g., Sharon, 2007, 2010), and might have served as a tech-nological guideline for the production of large bone flakes removedfrom elephant limb bones for the production of bone bifaces.

Several reasons for the flaking and shaping elephant bonescould be suggested. Bone flakes could be used for cutting meat,most effectively frozen (Stanford et al., 1981); large pointed toolsmade of elephant bones might be used in percussion activities,possibly in breaking other elephant limb bones for marrowextraction (Sacc�a, 2012b; Boschian and Sacc�a, 2014); or for otherfunctional purposes. In the case of elephant bones shaped as


Fig. 7. A biface made on an elephant bone from the site of Castel di Guido. Courtesy of G. Boschian.


bifaces, apparently there is no clear functional advantage in usingbifacial flaking and reaching a regular and specific morphology foraccomplishing any of those functional activities.

It was argued that shortage in lithic raw material might havetriggered the use of elephant bones for tool manufacturing, as acompensation for the lack of stone (Palombo et al., 2003; Boschianand Sacc�a, 2010; Anzidei et al., 2012 and references therein).However, we find such an explanation to be an oversimplificationof the bone bifaces enigma. At most sites the production of

Fig. 8. A biface made on an elephant bone from t


elephant bone bifaces was conducted on a very small scale (seeTable 2). Such minute scale could not be claimed to support and/orreplace the lithic industry. It must be taken into account that thenumber of 99 bone bifaces of CDG seems to be exaggerated and that“ … those that can be indisputably classified as bifaces are relativelyfew” (Boschian and Sacc�a, 2014). Moreover, at the sites of Konso,Revadim and Bilzingsleben, lithic raw material scarcity is clearlynot the case (Brühl, 2003; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Beyene et al.,2013), and even at the site of Castel di Guido itself, many stone

he site of Bilzingsleben. Courtesy of E. Brühl.



bifaces are present (Boschian and Sacc�a, 2010, 2014). One shouldnote that at the site of La Polledrara, which is in proximity to Casteldi Guido, no stone, as well as no bone, bifaces were found. At LaPolledrara mostly very small stone flakes were used, associatedwith abundant elephant bones (Anzidei, 2001; Anzidei et al., 2012).At the site of Casal de' Pazzi as well, very small stone tools werereported, but the use of the abundant bone raw material for toolproduction was extremely scarce (Anzidei et al., 1999; Anzidei,2001). Thus, while at La Polledrara and Casal de' Pazzi the poten-tial use of the abundant elephant bones for practical purposes isself-evident, this was clearly not the case. We tend to assume thatduring Acheulian times, when stone resources were available, thesewere preferred for tools manufacturing over other raw materials.

The claim that bone tools were manufactured because of theirlarge size as a supplemental industry to the small-sized lithic toolsdoes not meets the test at Konso, Fontana Ranuccio and Revadim.There, bone bifaces are few and similar to or smaller than some ofthe stone bifaces (Biddittu et al., 1979; Segre and Ascenzi, 1984;Rabinovich et al., 2012; Beyene et al., 2013).

There is a clear preference for elephant bones in bone bifacemanufacturing. The thickness of elephant bones was possibly asignificant advantage in manufacturing large bone bifaces. Smallbone bifaces could have been made of bones of other large mam-mals, such as Rhinoceros or Hippopotamus. However, even the smallbone bifaces were made solely of elephant bones. At V�ertessz}ol}os,for example, elephant bones are scarce, nevertheless, the onlybifacialy flaked bone was an elephant bone (Kretzoi and Dobosi,1990).

An over-investment in the aesthetic aspect of some of theAcheulian stone bifaces is conspicuous in many cases, and severaltheories of symbolic and social meaning of these items werementioned above. Bone bifaces made solely of elephant bones invery small numbers (apart from CDG) are conspicuous as well, andcould be interpreted using similar lines of thinking. Some of thebone bifaces exhibit as well extraordinary aesthetic aspects (seeFigs. 5 and 6 as examples). Hence, we would like to propose thatbifaces made of elephant bones were not produced solely forfunctional and practical purposes.

In any event, in our opinion the relatively extensive repertoire ofshaped elephant bones at the CDG site should be viewed in directcorrelationwith the extensive use humansmade of elephants at thesite (see Boschian and Sacc�a, 2014 for details), and thus thisextraordinary state of evidence reinforces our impression regardingthe link between the human uses of elephants, most probably byusing stone bifaces, and the production of bifaces made of elephantbones. Our hypothesis is further discussed below.

5.1. Relevant ethnographic evidence

It is widely assumed that some of the most fundamental ele-ments in pre-modern hunteregatherers societies are the conceptsof Animism, Totemism and Shamanism (Bird-David, 1999;Helander-Renvall, 2010; Herva and Salmi, 2010), and more specif-ically, the belief in ‘animal soul’ and concepts of supreme beingslike ‘Lord of animals’ on which depends the success of the hunt(e.g., Pettazzoni, 1959; pp. 65; Paulson and Auer, 1964; Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1976; Joiris, 1996; pp. 268). As a consequence, human-eanimal relationships in hunter gatherer societies are based onmutual respect and principles of reciprocity (Fienup-Riordan, 1988,1994; pp. 58e9; Ingold, 2000; Jordan, 2008; pp. 236e239), espe-cially dealing with the main prey animals essential for humansurvival (Hill, 2011). One common belief is that animals are willingto sacrifice themselves to people who treat their carcasses withrespect. Much importance is given to the placement of the animal'sbody, to the treatment of its skin or hide, and to the way it is


butchered (Hill, 2011). In many hunteregatherers societies animalswere held responsible for hunter's illness or accidents as a responseto violation of a taboo or to the improper treatment of a prey ani-mal's remains (Junod, 1962; pp. 77e78; Nelson, 1983; pp. 171e2;Sabo and Sabo, 1985; Laugrand and Oosten, 2008; pp. 99; Hill,2011). Regarding the concept of this peculiar power possessed byseveral wild animals Junod (1962, pp. 79) stated that “ … it is nodoubt very ancient, dating perhaps from a time when man was noteven greatly differentiated from the animal. It originated in theinstinctive fear which primitive man felt after shedding the blood of hisfellow men and of certain particularly redoubtable wild animals”.

Another aspect of maneanimal relationship is amulet making.Amulets represent ‘magical’ relationships between people and preyanimals, perhaps in a sense of ‘like attracts alike’. Amulets made ofbone, skin or tusk of the desired animal may provide a material linkbetween the hunter and the prey (McNiven, 2010; Hill, 2011).Mammoth ivory was the major source of raw material for theproduction of personal adornments and mobile art as amulets and/or figurines during the Upper Palaeolithic (Gaudzinski et al., 2005and references therein). Mammoth bones were also used for theproduction of art items, but to a lesser extent. It is suggested bysome scholars that the purpose of amulets is in so called “allure-ment rituals”, which symbolically attract the prey animal to thehunter (McNiven and Feldman, 2003; Hill, 2011. Interestingly, ele-phants are long known to treat bones of other elephants withspecial attention (McComb et al., 2006)).

Several ethnographic examples of modern hunteregatherersgroups regarding humaneelephant relationships are quitethought-provoking. Although modern ethnographies could notbe used as direct analogues to the past, we assume that sincehumans have interacted with elephants for hundreds of thou-sands of years, some basic concepts within the humaneelephantdivide might be seen as universal elements in these relationshipsand thus modern examples might bear some relevance to thepast as well. Several such groups notice many similarities be-tween humans and elephants. For instance, the Samburu peoplefrom the republic of Kenya (Kuriyan, 2002) indicate that ele-phants have a trunk that acts like a human arm, breasts similar towomen's, and skin that resembles the human skin. The Bakapigmies of Cameroon claim that elephants “eat the people's food”(Joiris, 1993b) because both people and elephants consume theedible wild yam Dioscorea mangenotiana. Elephants and humansshare the same forest areas, and the Baka often follow elephanttracks, which are large and clear. The symbolic treatment of el-ephants among the Baka is also related to their almost humanaction, clearing their paths in the forest by felling trees andmodifying the landscape like the Baka themselves do (Joiris,1993b). Consequently, certain taboos exist that prohibit thekilling or eating of elephants. The Samburu used to bless deadelephants by placing green branches onto the elephant's grave asa symbol of honor and respect (Kuriyan, 2002). The Nayaka ofSouth India consider elephants to be ancient “relatives” ofhumans and “super-persons” with a spirit similar to human's,thus gaining them respect between man and necessitate partic-ular relationships between man and elephant (Bird-David andNaveh, 2008). The Baka believe that spirits of their deceasedrelatives walk side by side with the elephant during the hunt(Joiris, 1993a), and their family eldest protective spirit come closeto the elephant's head after the kill. Thus, as the last ritual in achain of elephant hunt rites, they build sacred enclosure in thedirection of the killed elephant's head for this eldest spirit to “ …

mark the inauguration of a long process of initiation to the ritualassociation” (Joiris, 1996; pp. 269). The Thonga big game huntersfrom South Africa were recognized as a superior caste. They werepracticing mysterious rites and were claimed to obtain special



power over elephants (see Junod, 1962; pp. 59 for details). In themythology of Uduk people of Sudan (James, 1988) the elephant ispresented as one of the main figures in the humanity creationmyths (see Lev and Barkai, submitted for publication, for moreexamples).

Clear and unique archaeological evidence for special beliefs thatwere linked to Mammoths comes from the Gravettian site ofP�redmostí in the Czech Republic (27e25 thousand years ago),where several human skeletons were found covered withmammoth scapulae (Svoboda, 2008). Those human remains weredeposited in a burial area that was located under a remarkable rock,a cliff towering directly above the site.“ … Mammoth scapulae (oneof which had irregular engraving) evidently covered three or moreskeletons on the margins of the burial area, but provided no contig-uous cover of the whole space. In addition two mammoth scapulaeprobably covered individual human remains south of the burial area,and perhaps in one instance southeast of the burial area” (Svoboda,2008).

The above description portrays a striking picture of burial areaconnected to a topographical feature (a rock) and probably reflectssome kind of symbolic treatment of the deceased using mammothscapula.

6. Speculations

We suggest a new understanding of the use of elephant bones inAcheulian tool production, and discuss its implication on recon-structing humaneelephant relationship in the Lower Paleolithic.

Elephant meat and fat had a significant contribution to humandiet, supporting the long and successful human adaptability duringAcheulian times. This strong dependency likely provided Probosi-deans with extraordinary economic, social and cosmological sig-nificance. Disregarding whether elephants were hunted orscavenged, reaching the elephant (dead or alive) in time requiredperfect knowledge and familiarity with its behavior, needs, moti-vations and natural habitat. This intimate acquaintance could leadto personal involvement, and even empathy.

Ethnographic investigations reveal that contemporary human-eelephant relationships were not established solely on hunting/scavenging activities and meat consumption. Numerous examplespresent the deeply cosmological and symbolic meaning of ele-phants to people, as well as the pronounced resemblances thatpeople find between elephants and humans, leading to theperception of elephants as ancient relatives. This concept of simi-larity between humans and elephants, as well as honored treat-ment of a main prey animal, might be seen in western eyes,however, as in direct conflict with the actions of butchering andeating elephants.

There is an intriguing bond between hominins, bifaces and el-ephants in the Acheulian throughout the OldWorld for hundreds ofthousands of years. The resemblance between butchering toolsmade of stone and similar tools made of bones of the butcheredelephants is striking. We tend to suggest that manufacturing ofhandaxes from elephant bones might have been an expression ofpeople's sense of dissonance for consuming those impressive ani-mals, as well as a symbolic act of reassurance of continuation of thisAcheulian existence pattern. In our opinion, the special attitudetowards elephants begins with the earliest encounters of Homoerectus and elephants in Africa, as evident at the Konso sites, andcontinues throughout the prolonged use of elephants by earlyhumans (and the successors of H. erectus as well) in the threecontinents of the Old World.


Acknowledgments

This paper was presented at the VIth International Conferenceon Mammoths and their Relatives held at Grevena and Siatista,Greece. We would like to thank to Aviad Agam, Giovanni Boschian,and Richard Yerkes for reading the early version of this manuscriptand contributing useful remarks and insights. We would like tothank Enrico Brühl, Giovanni Boschian, Margherita Mussi, and OferMarder for permitting us the use of their wonderful photos and adrawing in this paper. All rights of these figures are reserved. Wewould also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers thatimproved this manuscript with useful advise and corrections.

References

Agam, A., Marder, O., Barkai, R., 2014. Small flake production and lithic recycling atLate Acheulian Revadim, Israel. Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.06.070.

Anzidei, A.P., 2001. Tools from elephant bones at la Polledrara di Cecanibbio andRebibbia-Casal de'Pazzi. The World of Elephants. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P.,Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress.Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 415e418.

Anzidei, A.P., Gioia, P., 1990. The lithic industry from Rebibbia-Casal de'Pazzi. In:Paper of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology, New Developments inItalian Archaeology, Part 1, pp. 155e179.

Anzidei, A.P., Arnoldus-Huyzendveld, A., Caloi, L., Lemorini, C., Palombo, M.R., 1999.Two Middle Pleistocene sites near Rome (Italy): la Polledrara di Cecanibbio andRebibbia-Casal de'Pazzi. In: Gaudzinski, S., Turner, E. (Eds.), The Role of EarlyHumans in the Accumulation of European Lower and Middle Palaeolithic BoneAssemblages. Monographien des R€omisch-Germanischen ZentralmuseumsMainz, Habelt, Mainz & Bonn, pp. 173e195.

Anzidei, A., Biddittu, I., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Piperno, M., 2001. Lithic and bone in-dustries of OIS 9 and OIS 7 in the roman area. The World of Elephants. Pro-ceedings of the First International Congress. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche,Rome, pp. 3e9.

Anzidei, A.P., Bulgarelli, G.M., Catalano, P., Cerilli, E., Gallotti, R., Lemorini, C.,Salvatore, M., Polombo, M.R., Pantano, W., Santucci, E., 2012. Ongoing researchat the late Middle Pleistocene site of la Polledrara di Cecanibbio (Central Italy),with emphasis on humaneelephant relationships. Quaternary International255, 171e187.

Ashton, N., White, M., 2003. Bifaces and raw materials: flexible flaking in the BritishEarly Paleolithic. In: Soressi, M., Dibble, H. (Eds.), Multiple Approaches to theStudy of Bifacial Technologies. University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archae-ology and Anthropology, pp. 109e124.

Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. The known and unknown about the Acheulian. In: Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry toDiscard. Equinox, London, pp. 479e494.

Bar-Yosef, O., Belmaker, M., 2011. Early and Middle Pleistocene faunal and hominindispersals through Southwestern Asia. Quaternary Science Review 30,1318e1337.

Barkai, R., 2009. Comment on Sharon G Acheulean giant core technology: aworldwide perspective. Current Anthropology 50 (3), 356e357.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2013. Cultural and biological transformations in the MiddlePleistocene Levant: a view from Qesem Cave, Israel. In: Akazawa, T., Nishiaki, Y.,Aoki, K. (Eds.), Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans.Springer, Japan, pp. 115e137.

Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Solodenko, N., Lemorini, C., 2013. An Amudian Oddity: a giantbiface from Late Lower Palaeolithic Qesem Cave. Tel Aviv 40 (2), 176e186.

Bello, S.M., Parfitt, S.A., Stringer, C., 2009. Quantitative micromorphological analysesof cut marks produced by ancient and modern handaxes. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 36 (9), 1869e1880.

Ben-Dor, M., Gopher, A., Hershkovitz, I., Barkai, R., 2011. Man the fat hunter: thedemise of Homo erectus and the emergence of a new hominin lineage in theMiddle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant. PLoS One 6 (12), e28689.

Beyene, Y., Katoh, S., WoldeGabriel, G., Hart, W.K., Uto, K., Sudo, M., Kondo, M.,Hyodo, M., Renne, P.R., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., 2013. The characteristics andchronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 110 (5), 1584e1591.

Biddittu, I., Celletti, P., 2001. Plio-Pleistocene Proboscidea and Lower Palaeolithicbone industry of Southern Latium (Italy). The world of elephants. In:Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the FirstInternational Congress. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 91e96.

Biddittu, I., Cassoli, P., Radicati di Brozolo, F., Segre, A., Segre Naldini, E., Villa, I.,1979. Anagni, a K-ar dated Lower and Middle Pleistocene site, central Italy:preliminary report. Quaternaria, Storia Naturale e Culturale Del QuaternarioRoma 21, 53e71.

Bird-David, N., 1999. “Animism” revisited: personhood, environment, and relationalepistemology 1. Current Anthropology 40 (S1), S67eS91.




http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00056-7/sref2


















http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00056-7/sref31f






























































Bird-David, N., Naveh, D., 2008. Relational epistemology, immediacy, and conser-vation: or, what do the Nayaka try to conserve? Journal for the Study of Reli-gion, Nature and Culture 2 (1), 55e73.

Boschian, G., Sacc�a, D., 2010. Ambiguities in human and elephant interactions?Stories of bones, sand and water from Castel di Guido (Italy). Quaternary In-ternational 214 (1), 3e16.

Boschian, G., Sacc�a, D., 2014. In the elephant, everything is good: carcass use and re-use at Castel di Guido (Italy). Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.030.

Brühl, E., 2003. The Small Flint Tool Industry from Bilzingsleben-Steinrinne. In:British Archaeological Reports International Series, 1115, pp. 49e64.

Calvin, W., 1993. The unitary hypothesis: a common neural circuitry for novelmanipulations, language, plan-ahead and throwing. In: Gibson, K.R., Ingold, T.(Eds.), Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution. Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 230e250.

Cannell, A., 2014. Proboscidean resources and the engineering of Acheulean lithictechnology. Lithic Technology 39 (1), 39e45.

Carbonell, E., Mosquera, M., Oll�e, A., Rodriguez, X.P., Sala, R., Verg�es, J.M.,Arsuaga, J.L., Bermudez de Castro, J.M., 2003. Les premiers comportementsfun�eraires auraientils pris place �a Atapuerca, il y a 350 000 ans? Did the earliestmortuary practices take place more than 350 000 years ago at Atapuerca?L'Anthropologie 107, 1e14.

Clark, J.D., 1977. Bone tools of the Earlier Pleistocene. Eretz-Israel 13, 23e37.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: Stephen, J., Lycett, S.J., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), New Perspectiveson Old Stones. Springer, New York, pp. 23e41.

Dennell, R., 2009. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge University Press,Cambrige.

Despri�ee, J., Voinchet, P., Gageonnet, R., D�epont, J., Bahain, J.-J., Falgu�eres, C.,Tissoux, H., Dolo, J.-M., Courcimault, G., 2009. Les vagues de peuplementshumains au Pl�eistoc�ene inf�erieur et moyen dans le bassin de la Loire moyenne,R�egion Centre, France. Apports de l'�etude des formations fluviatiles. L'Anthro-pologie 113, 125e167.

Dobosi, V., 2001. Ex proboscideis-proboscidean remains as raw material at fourPalaeolithic sites, Hungary. The world of elephants. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioia, P.,Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Congress.Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, Rome, pp. 429e431.

Dobosi, V., 2003. Changing Environment-unchanged Culture at Vertesszolos,Hungary. In: BAR International Series, 1115, pp. 101e112.

Dominguez-Rodrigo, D., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Treserras, J., Alcal�a, L., Luque, L., 2001.Woodworking activities by early humans: a plant residue analysis onAcheulian stone tools from Peninj, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 40 (4),289e299.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Pickering, T.R., Díez-Martín, F., Mabulla, A., Musiba, C.,Trancho, G., Baquedano, E., Bunn, H.T., Barboni, D., Santonja, M., Uribelarrea, D.,Ashley, G.M., Martínez-�Avila, M.S., Barba, R., Gidna, A., Yravedra, J., Arriaza, M.,2012. Earliest porotic hyperostosis on a 1.5-million-year-old hominin, OlduvaiGorge, Tanzania. PLoS One 7 (10), e46414.

Dunlap, R.A., 1997. The Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Numbers. World ScientificPublishing.

Echassoux, A., 2012. Comportements de subsistance et modifications osseuses �al'aube de l'Acheul�een �a Konso, Ethiopie. L'Anthropologie 116 (3), 291e320.

Fienup-Riordan, A., 1988. Eye of the dance: spiritual life of the Bering Sea Eskimo.In: Fitzhugh, W.W., Crowell, A.L. (Eds.), Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofSiberia and Alaska. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (DC),pp. 256e270.

Fienup-Riordan, A., 1994. In: Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup'ikEskimo Oral Tradition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman (OK).

Fluck, H.L., 2011. Non-biface Assemblages in Middle Pleistocene Western Europe. AComparative Study (Ph.D. thesis). University of Southampton, School ofHumanities.

Gaudzinski, S., Turner, E., Anzidei, A., �Alvarez-Fern�andez, E., Arroyo-Cabrales, J.,Cinq-Mars, J., Dobosi, V.T., Hannus, A., Johnson, E., Münzel, S.C., Scheer, A.,Villa, P., 2005. The use of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life.Quaternary International 126, 179e194.

Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry: a case studyfrom Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:Biological Science 366 (1567), 1038e1049.

Goren-Inbar, N., Lister, A., Werker, E., Chech, M., 1994. A butchered elephant skulland associated artifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel.Pal�eorient 20 (1), 99e112.

Gowlett, J.A.J., 2011. Special issue: innovation and the evolution of human behav-iour. The vital sense of proportion: transformation, golden section and 1:2preference in Acheulean bifaces. Palaeoanthropology 174e187.

Harrod, J.B., 2014. Palaeoart at two million years ago? a review of the evidence. Arts3 (1), 135e155.

Haynes, G., Krasinski, K.E., 2010. Taphonomic fieldwork in Southern Africa and itsapplication in studies of the earliest peopling of North America. Journal ofTaphonomy 8 (2e3), 181e202.

Helander-Renvall, E., 2010. Animism, personhood and the nature of reality: samiperspectives. Polar Record 46 (01), 44e56.


Herva, V.P., Salmi, A.K., 2010. Engaging with sea and seals: Environmental andhuman-animal relations on the northern coast of the early modern Gulf ofBothnia. Norwegian Archaeological Review 43 (2), 115e127.

Hill, E., 2011. Animals as agents: hunting ritual and relational ontologies inprehistoric Alaska and Chukotka. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21,407e426.

Hodgson, D., 2011. The first appearance of symmetry in the human lineage: whereperception meets art. Symmetry 3 (1), 37e53.

Ingold, T., 2000. From trust to domination: an alternative history of humaneanimalrelations. In: Ingold, T. (Ed.), The Perception of the Environment: Essays onLivelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, London, pp. 61e76.

James, W., 1988. The Listening Ebony: Moral Knowledge, Religion and Power Amongthe Uduk of Sudan. Oxford Clarendon Press.

Joiris, D.V., 1993a. Baba Pygmy hunting rituals in Southern Cameroon: how to walkside by side with the Elephant. Civilisations 51e81.

Joiris, D.V., 1993b. The mask that is hungry for yams: ethno-ecology of DioscoreaMangenotiana among the Baka, Cameroon. In: Hladik, C.M., Hladik, A.,Linares, O.F., Pagezy, H., Semple, A.T., Hadley, M. (Eds.), Tropical Forests, Peopleand Food: Biocultural Interactions and Applications to Development,pp. 633e641.

Joiris, D.V., 1996. A comparative approach to hunting rituals among Baka Pygmies(southeastern Cameroon). In: Kent, S. (Ed.), Cultural Diversity AmongTwentieth-century Foragers: an African Perspective. Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 245e275.

Jones, P.R., 1981. Experimental implement manufacture and use: a case study fromOlduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon 292, 189e195.

Jordan, P., 2008. Northern landscapes, northern mind: on the trail of an archaeologyof hunter-gatherer belief’. In: Whitley, D.S., Hays-Gilpin, K. (Eds.), Belief in thePast: Theoretical Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion. Left Coast Press,Walnut Creek (CA), pp. 227e246.

Junod, H.A., 1962. The Life of a South African Tribe, vol. 2. University Books INC.Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., Hurtado, A.M., 2000. A theory of human life history

evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology 9 (4),156e185.

Kaplan, H., Gangestad, S., Gurven, M., Lancaster, J., Mueller, T., Robson, A., 2007. Theevolution of diet, brain and life history among primates and humans. In:Roebroeks, W. (Ed.), Guts and Brains an Integrative Approach to the HomininRecord. Leiden University Press, Leiden, pp. 47e90.

Keeley, L.H., 1977. The functions of Paleolithic Flint Tools. Scientific American 237,108e126.

Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a MicrowearAnalysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Keeley, L.H., 1992. Microwear analysis of lithics. In: Singer, R., Gladfelter, B.G.,Wymer, J.J. (Eds.), The Lower Palaeolithic Site at Hoxne, England. University ofChicago Press, Chicago, pp. 129e149.

Kleindienst, M.R., 1962. Components of the East African Acheulean assemblage: ananalytic approach. In: Mortelmans, G. (Ed.), Actes du IV�eme Congr�es Panafricainde Pr�ehistoire et de l’Etude du Quaternaire, vol. 40. Mus�ee Royal de l’AfriqueCentrale, Tervuren (Belgique), pp. 81e105.

Kohn, M., Mithen, S., 1999. Handaxes: products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73,518e526.

Kretzoi, M., Dobosi, V.T., 1990. V�ertessz}ol}os: Site, Man and Culture. Akad�emiaiKiad�o.

Kuriyan, R., 2002. Linking local perceptions of elephants and conservation: Sam-buru pastoralists in northern Kenya. Society & Natural Resources 15 (10),949e957.

Lacaille, A.D., 1940. The Palaeoliths from the gravels of the lower Boyn Hill Terracearound maidenhead. Antiquaries Journal 20, 245e271.

Laugrand, F., Oosten, J., 2008. The Sea Woman: Sedna in Inuit Shamanism and Art inthe Eastern Arctic. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks (AK).

Leakey, M.D., 1971. Olduvai Gorge: Volume 3, Excavations in Beds I and II. UniversityPress Cambridge, pp. 1960e1963.

Lev, M., Barkai, R., 2015. Elephants Are People, People Are Elephants: ElephantsFood Taboos as a Case for Cross Cultural Animal Humanization. QuaternaryInternational (Submitted for publication).

Lycett, S.J., 2008. Acheulian variation and selection: does handaxe symmetry fitneutral expectations? Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (9), 2640e2648.

Lycett, S.J., Gowlett, J.A.J., 2008. On questions surrounding the Acheulean “tradi-tion”. World Archaeology 40 (3), 295e315.

Machin, A., 2009. The role of the individual agent in Acheulean biface variability: amulti-factorial model. Journal of Social Archaeology 9, 35e58.

Machin, A.J., Hosfield, R.T., Mithen, S.J., 2007. Why are some handaxes symmetrical?Testing the influence of handaxe morphology on butchery effectiveness. Journalof Archaeological Science 34 (6), 883e893.

Mania, D., Mania, U., 2003. Bilzingsleben Homo Erectus, His Culture and His Envi-ronment. The Most Important Results of Research. In: Bar International Series1115, pp. 29e48.

Mania, D., Mania, U., 2005. The natural and socio-cultural environment of Homoerectus at Bilzingsleben, Germany. In: Gamble, C. (Ed.), The Individual Hominidin Context: Archaeological Investigations of Lower and Middle PalaeolithicLandscapes, Locales and Artifacts. Routledge, pp. 98e114.





















http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00056-7/sref32n















http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00056-7/sref33j














































































































































































































Marder, O., Milevski, I., Matskevich, Z., 2006. The handaxes of Revadim Quarry:typo-technological considerations and aspects of intra-site variability. In:Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G. (Eds.), Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarryto Discard. Equinox, London, pp. 223e242.

McComb, K., Baker, L., Moss, C., 2006. African elephants show high levels of interestin the skulls and ivory of their own species. Biology Letters 2 (1), 26e28.

McNiven, I.J., 2010. Navigating the humaneanimal divide: marine mammal huntersand rituals of sensory allurement. World Archaeology 42 (2), 215e230.

McNiven, I.J., Feldman, R., 2003. Ritually orchestrated seascapes: hunting magic anddugong bone mounds in Torres Strait, NE Australia. Cambridge ArchaeologicalJournal 13 (2), 169e194.

Michel, V., Yokoyama, Y., Boschian, G., 2001. Preliminary U-series results and datingof faunal remains from Castel di Guido, Italy. In: The World of Elephants. Pro-ceedings of the First International Congress. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche,Rome, pp. 548e551.

Mitchell, J.C., 1995. Studying biface butchery at Boxgrove: roe deer butchery withreplica handaxes. Lithics 16, 64e69.

Mitchell, J.C., 1997. Quantitative image analysis of lithic microwear on flint han-daxes. Microscopy and Analysis 15e18.

Mussi, M., 2005. Hombres y Elefantes en las latitudes medias: una larga convivencia(con la colaboraci�on de: AP Anzidei. G Boschian, F Martini, P Mazza, M Piperno).In: Santonja Gomez, M., P�erez- Gonz�alez, A. (Eds.), Los Yacimientos Paleoliticosde Ambrona y Torralba. Zona Arqueol�ogica, vol. 5. Museo Arqueol�ogicoRegional, Madrid, pp. 396e417.

Naldini, E.S., Muttoni, G., Parenti, F., Scardia, G., Segre, A.G., 2009. Nouvellesrecherches dans le bassin Plio-Pl�eistoc�ene d’Anagni (Latium M�eridional, Italie).L'Anthropologie 113 (1), 66e77.

Nelson, R.K., 1983. Make Prayers to the Raven: a Koyukon View of the NorthernForest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (IL).

Nowell, A., Chang, M.L., 2009. The Case against sexual selection as an explanation ofhandaxe morphology. Paleoanthropology 77e88.

Nowell, A., White, M.J., 2010. Growing up in the Middle Pleistocene: life historystrategies and their relationship to Acheulian industries. In: Nowell, A.,Davidson, I. (Eds.), Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Cognition. Uni-versity Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 67e82.

Oakley, K.P., 1981. Emergence of higher thought 3.0-0.2 Ma B.P. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society 292, 205e211.

O'Brien, E., 1981. The projectile capabilities of an Acheulian handaxe from Olorge-sailie. Current Anthropology 22, 76e79.

Palombo, M.R., Anzidei, A.P., Arnoldus-Huyzendveld, A., 2003. La Polledrara diCecanibbio: one of the richest Elephas (Palaeoloxodon) antiquus sites of the lateMiddle Pleistocene in Italy. Deinsea 9, 317e330.

Paulson, I., Auer, N.E., 1964. The animal guardian: a critical and synthetic review.History of Religions 3 (2), 202e219.

Pettazzoni, R., 1959. The supreme being: phenomenological structure and historicaldevelopment. In: Eliade, M., Kitagawa, J.M. (Eds.), The History of Religions:Essays in Methodology, p. 65. Chicago.

Pope, M., Russel, K., Watson, K., 2006. Biface form and structured behaviour in theAcheulean. Lithics 27, 44e57.

Rabinovich, R., Ackermann, O., Aladjem, E., Barkai, R., Biton, R., Milevski, I.,Solodenko, N., Marder, O., 2012. Elephants at the Middle Pleistocene Acheulianopen-air site of Revadim Quarry, Israel. Quaternary International 276e277,183e197.

Radmilli, A.M., Boschian, G., 1996. Gli scavi a Castel di Guido: il piu antico glaci-mento di cacciatori del paleolitico inferire nell'Agro Romano. Istituto Italiano diPreistoria e Protostoria, Firenze.

Reichel-Dolmatoff, G., 1976. Cosmology as ecological analysis: a view from the rainforest. Man 307e318.

Rodríguez, J., Rodríguez-G�omez, G., Martín-Gonz�alez, J.A., Goikoetxea, I., Mateos, A.,2012. Predatoreprey relationships and the role of Homo in Early Pleistocenefood webs in Southern Europe. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palae-oecology 365, 99e114.


Sabo, G., Sabo, D.R., 1985. Belief systems and the ecology of sea mammal huntingamong the Baffinland Eskimo. Arctic Anthropology 22 (2), 77e86.

Sacc�a, D., 2012a. Taphonomy of Palaeloxodon antiquusat Castel di Guido (Rome,Italy): proboscidean carcass exploitation in the Lower Palaeolithic. QuaternaryInternational 226e227, 27e41.

Sacc�a, D., 2012b. L'industria ossea di Castel di Guido (Roma): analisi tafonomica dibifacciali e strumenti poco elaborati. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche LXII, 13e32.

Schwarcz, H.P., Grün, R., Latham, A., Mania, D., Brunnacker, K., 1988. The Bilzing-sleben archaeological site: new dating evidence. Archaeometry 30 (1), 5e17.

Segre, A., Ascenzi, A., 1984. Fontana ranuccio: Italy's earliest Middle Pleistocenehominid site. Current Anthropology 25 (2), 230e233.

Sharon, G., 2007. Acheulian Large Flake Industries: Technology, Chronology, andSignificance, vol. 1701. British Archaeological Reports Ltd.

Sharon, G., 2008. The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production.Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1329e1344.

Sharon, G., 2009. Acheulean giant-core technology. Current Anthropology 50 (3),335e367.

Sharon, G., 2010. Large flake Acheulean. Quaternary International 223e224,226e233.

Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., Goren-Inbar, N., 2011. Cultural conservatism andvariability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. Journal of Hu-man Evolution 60 (4), 387e397.

Solodenko, N., 2010. On Tools and Elephants: an Analysis of the Lithic Assemblagefrom Area B of the Late Acheulian Site Revadim Quarry (Unpublished MAthesis). Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, Tel Aviv Uni-versity (in Hebrew).

Solodenko, N., Zupanchich, A., Nunziante-Cesaro, S., Marder, O., Lemorini, C.,Barkai, R., 2015. Fat residue and use-wear found on Acheulian biface andscraper associated with butchered elephant remains at the site of Revadim,Israel. Plos One (Submitted for publication).

Somel, M., Liu, X., Khaitobich, P., 2013. Human brain evolution: transcripts, me-tabolites and their regulators. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 112e127.

Spikins, P., 2012. Goodwill hunting? Debates over the ‘meaning’of Lower Palae-olithic handaxe form revisited. World Archaeology 44 (3), 378e392.

Stanford, D., Bonnichsen, R., Morlan, R.E., 1981. The Ginsberg experiment: modernand prehistoric evidence of a bone-flaking technology. Science 212, 438e440.

Suwa, G., Nakaya, H., Asfaw, B., Saegusa, H., Amzaye, A., Kono, R.T., Katoh, S., 2003.Plio-Pleistocene terrestrial mammal assemblage from Konso, SouthernEthiopia. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23 (4), 901e916.

Svoboda, J., 2008. The Upper Paleolithic burial area at P�redmostí: ritual andtaphonomy. Journal of Human Evolution 54 (1), 15e33.

Watanabe, H., 1985. The chopper-chopping tool complex of Eastern Asia: Anethnoarchaeological-ecological reexamination. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 4, 1e18.

Wayman, J.L., 2010. Foot cutters: a new hypothesis for the function of Acheulianbifaces and related lithics. Lithic technology 35 (2), 171e194.

Wenban-Smith, F., 2004. Handaxe typology and Lower Palaeolithic cultural devel-opment: ficrons, cleavers and two giant handaxes from Cuxton. Lithics 25,11e21.

Wenban-Smith, F.F., Allen, P., Bates, M.R., Parfitt, S.A., Preece, R.C., Steward, J.R.,Turner, C., Whitaker, J.E., 2006. The Clactonian elephant butchery site atSouthfleet Road, Ebbsfleet, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21 (5), 471e483.

Whittaker, J., McCall, G., 2001. Handaxe-hurling hominids: an unlikely story. Cur-rent Anthropology 42, 566e572.

Wynn, T., 2002. Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences25, 389e438.

Yravedra, J., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Santonja, M., Perz-Gonzalez, A., Panera, J.,Rubio-Jara, S., Baquedano, E., 2010. Cut marks on the Middle Pleistoceneelephant carcass of Aridos 2 (Madrid, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science37, 2469e2476.

Zaidner, Y., Yeshurun, R.,Mallol, C., 2010. Early Pleistocene hominins outside of Africa:recent excavations at Bizat Ruhama, Israel. Paleoanthropology 162e195.


















http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(15)00056-7/sref35y







































































































































































the use of elephant bones for making acheulian handaxes: a fresh look at old bones

Documents