From Tools to Symbols: from Early Hominids to Modern Humans, edited by Francesco d'Errico & Lucinda...

238

The origin of bone tool technology and the identification of early hominid cultural traditions

Lucinda Backwell and Francesco d’Errico

Institute for Human Evolution, School of Geosciences, University of the Witwatersrand,

Private Bag 3, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa

UMR 5808 du CNRS, Institut de Préhistoire et de Géologie du Quaternaire, Avenue des Facultés,

33405 Talence, France

PACEA/UMR 5199 du CNRS, Institut de Préhistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire,

UFR de Geologie, Bat. B18, Avenue des Facultés, 33405 Talence, France

Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington DC

AbstractA number of natural processes occurring during the life of an animal or after its death can produce pseudo-

tools, mimics of human-made objects. A number of purported bone tools from Lower and Middle Palaeolithic

sites have been published without any validating microscopic analysis of the bone surfaces showing possible

traces of manufacture and use. This paper discusses the evolutionary significance of bone tool technology

and summarises results of research on the use of bone tools by early hominids between one and two million

years ago (Mya). It attempts to establish formal criteria for the identification of minimally modified bone tools by

characterising the modifications produced by known human and non-human agents, and applying these criteria

to the purported bone tool collections from Swartkrans, Sterkfontein and Olduvai Gorge. A number of experiments

involving a variety of tasks were conducted in order to increase the range of diagnostic features available. New

analytical techniques have been developed for the quantification of microscopic use-wear, and a wide range

of taphonomic and morphometric variables have been used to isolate idiosyncratic populations of specimens

for which a robust argument can be made for their identification as tools. South and East African early hominid

The origin of bone tool technology

239

sites dated to between 1,8 Mya and 1 Mya have yielded what appear to be very different types of bone tools.

The former are characterised by long bone shaft fragments and horn-cores of medium to large-sized bovids,

collected by hominids after weathering, and possibly used in specialised digging activities. Most fragments were

used as such, though a few horn-cores were modified by grinding the tips to points on sandstone or compact

abrasive sediment. Those from East Africa mainly consist of freshly broken, or more rarely, complete irregular

bones from very large mammals, used as such, or modified by flaking. Irregular bones or epiphyses appear to

have been used as hammers, while the others were apparently involved in a variety of light- and heavy-duty

activities. Based on the bone tool manufacturing techniques recorded in the two regions, there appear to be no

significant differences between the cognitive abilities of the hominid users. Evidence of intentional flaking by

knapping seen on the Olduvai bone tools, and traces of grinding on those from South Africa, suggests that the

makers of the tools had a clear understanding of the properties of bone, could anticipate the end product, and

conceived shaping techniques specific to this raw material in order to achieve optimal efficiency in the tasks for

which they were used.

RésuméUn certain nombre de phénomènes naturels se produisant au cours de la vie d’un animal ou après sa mort

peuvent produire des pseudo outils en os, imitant les objets façonnés par l’homme. Plusieurs fragments d’os

provenant de sites du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen ont été interprétés comme des outils en os sans que cette

interprétation soit validée par une analyse microscopique documentant des traces de modification intentionnelle et

d’utilisation. Ce chapitre traite des implications d’une technologie de l’os pour l’évolution cognitive des hominidés

et récapitule les résultats de nos recherches sur les outils en os utilisés par les hominidés ayant vécu en Afrique

australe entre un et deux millions d’années. Nous tentons également d’établir des critères pour l’identification

d’outils en os faiblement modifiés en caractérisant les modifications produites par des agents humains et non

humains connus. Ces critères sont appliqués à l’analyse du matériel de Swartkrans, Sterkfontein et Olduvai

Gorge. Une approche expérimentale est adoptée dans certains cas pour augmenter le nombre et vérifier la

pertinence des critères diagnostiques. Des nouvelles techniques d’analyse ont été élaborées pour quantifier les

traces d’utilisation et une gamme de variables taphonomiques et morphométriques ont été utilisées pour isoler

des populations d’objets ayant pu être utilisés comme outils. Nos résultats indiquent que les sites de premiers

hominidés du sud et de l’est de l’Afrique datés entre 1,8 et 1 millions d’années livrent des outils en os différents.

Les premiers consistent en des éclats d’os longs et des chevilles osseuses provenant de bovidés de taille

moyenne à large, que des hominidés ont ramassés à même le sol, déjà altérés par les agents atmosphériques, et

utilisés comme des bâtons à fouir. Certaines chevilles osseuses ont été appointées par abrasion sur du grès ou

du sol compacté. Les outils d’Afrique de l’est consistent en des éclats issus de la fracturation d’os frais ou des os

complets de grands mammifères qui ont été utilisés tels quels, ou modifiés par percussion. Certains os entiers

ou épiphyses semblent avoir été utilisés comme des percuteurs, les autres ont servi dans des activités variées

(découpe, raclage...). Les techniques de façonnage et le mode d’utilisation des outils provenant des deux régions

ne peuvent pas être utilisées pour proposer que ces hominidés avaient des capacités cognitives différentes.

L’analyse des stigmates du façonnage par percussion sur les outils en os de Olduvai, et de celui par abrasion sur

From Tools to Symbols

240

les outils en os d’Afrique du Sud, suggèrent que les auteurs de ces outils avaient une claire compréhension des

propriétés de l’os, qu’ils pouvaient prévoir le résultat de leur actions sur la matière et qu’ils ont, dans les deux

cas, été capables de développer des traditions techniques bien adaptées à la matière première disponible dans

le but d’obtenir une efficacité optimale dans les tâches pour lesquelles ces outils étaient utilisés.

IntroductionThe earliest use of bone tools is a topic of ongoing debate among researchers

interested in early human culture and the emergence of modern cognition. This debate

concerns the implications of bone tools for assessing hominid cognitive abilities, and

the criteria one must use to firmly identify potentially used or minimally modified

bone tools, such as those that one may expect to find associated with, or that have

been reported from early hominid sites.

Unlike stone tools, the morphological predetermination of which is limited by the

constraints imposed by the fracture of isotropic materials, the final shape and size of a

bone tool produced with techniques such as grinding, scraping and grooving may be

determined with a high degree of accuracy. It is probably for this reason that bone tool

industries have been considered as particularly appropriate in characterising technical

systems, identifying regional patterns, disentangling style from function, tracking

changes in time, and inferring from these observations the degree of complexity of a

human culture. Klein (1999) has made this point, defining as ‘formal’ bone tools that

were ‘cut, carved or polished to form points, awls, borers, and so forth’. McBrearty and

Brooks (2000) list the use of bone and antler and their shaping into task-specific tools

among the features they consider diagnostic of behaviourally modern humans. The

absence in ancient prehistory of labour-intensive techniques specifically conceived

to modify bone material is consistent with the traditional view that early hominid

technological behaviour was essentially immediate, and involved only a short series of

single-stage operations, and thus a lower degree of conceptualisation than did Upper

Palaeolithic tools, which often involved several stages of manufacture (Dennell, 1983;

Noble & Davidson, 1996). It is also consistent with the view that the development of

technology was a gradual process that proceeded in parallel with biological evolution.

It comes as no surprise to such authors that bones used as hammers to retouch

stone tools, or bone tools shaped by knapping, are reported from Lower and Middle

Palaeolithic sites (Radmilli, 1985; Radmilli & Boschian, 1996), as they see these

behaviours as the simple transfer of percussion flaking from stone to bone, and proof

that early humans were incapable of developing sophisticated techniques specifically

conceived for bone.

One may wonder, however, how ‘formal’ a formal bone tool must be to tell us


241

something about the cognitive abilities of its maker and user. Most of the techniques

used to manufacture bone tools do not seem to require a particularly high level of

dexterity or cognition, nor do they seem difficult to transmit from one generation to

another. Among the tool types listed as reflecting modernity (awls, bores, points),

some are in fact in the techno-complexes where they are preserved in abundance,

minimally modified, and do not fall within precise morpho-technological standardised

categories as one might have expected if tools made with this raw material were the

quintessential reflection of modernity.

The degree of manufacture of bone tools used by ethnographically documented

societies is highly variable, and ranges, as in prehistory, from minimally modified to

highly sophisticated artefacts. We also observe in societies of anatomically modern

humans, contemporaneous with and postdating the European Upper Palaeolithic,

bone technology reaching a high level of sophistication in some, while others make

little or no use of bone tools.

We see four means by which to move a step forward in addressing this issue.

Although we do not have any direct analogy for evaluating ancient bone technologies

in terms of cognition, variability in the use of bone material by ethnographically known

and recent archaeological societies on the one hand, and the technical traditions and

related motions performed by chimpanzees and bonobos on the other, may provide

a suitable frame of reference. Chimpanzees in the wild are known to perform a

wide range of technical activities, some requiring a high degree of dexterity, such

as food-pounding, nut-hammering, pestle-pounding, termite and ant-fishing, fluid-

dipping, bee-probing, marrow-picking and expel/stirring (McGrew, 1996; Whiten et

al., 1999, Joulian, this volume). However, with the exception of recently observed

‘food smearing’ at the Madrid Zoo (Fernandez-Carriba & Loeches, 2000a, Fernandez-

Carriba et al, 2000) they do not seem to perform motions such as scraping or grinding,

nor the shaping of objects by reducing them through other wearing techniques. The

recognition of such techniques and motions in the archaeological record, whether

applied to bone or other raw materials, is an observation that requires explanation,

and may be indicative of differences between chimpanzee and hominid cognition.

Does the difference lie in the motion itself, in the duration required by the action to

achieve the goal, or in the conceptualisation of the desired morphological outcome?

Experimentation with captive chimpanzees may answer these questions and establish

whether ‘formal’ bone tools should still be considered as a hallmark of modernity.

A second approach that can certainly provide useful insight is the reconstruction

of the process from inception of the tool to its disposal and incorporation in the

archaeological record. This approach, known as the study of the chaîne opératoire,

seeks to read material culture in the form of an ordered chain of actions, gestures, and


242

processes in a production sequence that led to the transformation of a given material

to the finished product (Lemonnier, 1986; Schlanger, 1994, this volume). The concept,

linked in France to Andre Leroi-Gourhan (1964), is significant in that it allows the

archaeologist to infer from the finished artefact the procedures involved, intentionality

in the production sequence, and arguably the conceptual template of the maker.

Linked to this approach, we see the need to consider each instance of bone use

as an independent cultural adaptation to environmental conditions. This view seeks

to elaborate systemic models, providing best-fit explanations as to the role of a bone

technology within a specific subsistence strategy, and does not assume gradual patterns

of evolution in technology.

Finally, we believe that it is crucial to systematise the above inferences in time and

space. This allows researchers to identify possible patterns of innovation within multi-

stratified/membered deposits, and contemporaneous sites. It also provides a means by

which to demonstrate geographic variations suggestive of distinct cultural traditions.

The second, no less important, aspect of early bone technology concerns the criteria

used to firmly identify true tools. A number of natural processes occurring during the life

of an animal or after its death can produce pseudotools, mimics of human-made objects.

These include surface features resulting from vascular grooves (Shipman & Rose, 1984;

d’Errico & Villa, 1997), teeth use-wear (Gautier, 1986), breakage and wear of deer antler

(Olsen, 1989) and elephant tusk tips (Haynes, 1991; Villa & d’Errico, 1998), gnawing or

digestion by carnivores, rodents or herbivores (Pei, 1938; Sutcliffe, 1973, 1977; Binford,

1981; Villa & Bartram, 1996; d’Errico & Villa, 1997), fracture for marrow extraction

by hominids or carnivores (Bunn, 1981, 1982; Gifford-Gonzalez, 1989), trampling

(Haynes, 1988), root etching (Binford, 1981), weathering (Brain, 1967), and the action

of different sedimentary environments (Brain, 1981; Lyman, 1994).

As suggested by these and other authors (Bonnichsen & Sorg, 1989; Shipman,

1988; Shipman & Rose, 1988), in order to distinguish between pseudo-tools and true

tools, it is necessary to adopt an interdisciplinary approach, combining taphonomic

analysis of the associated fossil assemblages, microscopic studies of possible traces of

manufacture and use, and the experimental replication of the purported tools. It is by

applying this approach, for example, that Dart’s (1957) theory for an early hominid

‘Osteodontokeratic’ culture has strongly been challenged and largely refuted (Klein,

1975; Shipman & Phillips, 1976; Brain, 1981; Maguire et al., 1980).

What do we know about early bone tools? The early use of bone as a raw material for

retouching stone artefacts is evidenced at a number of Middle and Upper Pleistocene

sites in Europe (Henri-Martin, 1907; Chase, 1990; Pitts & Roberts, 1997; Malerba &

Giacobini, 1998). Acheulean-type bifaces flaked on elephant long bones and tusks

are known from three Middle Pleistocene sites in Italy (Cassoli et al., 1982; Radmilli,


243

1985; Biddittu & Bruni, 1987; Radmilli & Boschian, 1996), and an increasing number

of shaped bones are reported from Middle Stone Age sites in Africa (Beaumont et

al., 1978; Singer & Wymer, 1982; Henshilwood & Sealey, 1997; Deacon & Deacon,

1999; Henshilwood et al., 2002). These include a dagger-like object and barbed and

unbarbed points dated to between 90 and 60 thousand years ago (Kya) from the Congo

(Brooks et al., 1995; Yellen et al., 1995), and tools dated 70 Kya from Blombos Cave,

South Africa. Late Neanderthal sites in Europe such as Arcy-sur-Cure and Quincay in

France, dated to between 40 and 35 Kya, have yielded clear evidence of complex bone

technology, including personal ornaments, and shaped and decorated awls and bone

tubes (d’Errico et al., 1998; Zilhão & d’Errico, 1999a, b; d’Errico et al., 2003).

Many other putatively used or modified bone, antler, and ivory tools are reported

from a large number of Lower (Breuil, 1932, 1938; Breuil & Barral, 1955; Dart,

1957; Bonifay, 1974; Cahen et al., 1979; Biddittu & Segre, 1982; Howell & Freeman,

1983; Mania & Weber, 1986; Aguirre, 1986; Justus, 1989; Dobosi, 1990) and Middle

Palaeolithic sites in Africa and Europe (Kitching, 1963; Debenath & Duport, 1971;

Freeman, 1978, 1983; Vincent, 1988; Stepanchuk, 1993; Gaudzinsky, 1998, 1999).

However, most of these pieces have been published without validating microscopic

analyses of the bone surfaces to document possible traces of manufacture and use, and

in isolation of their taphonomic contexts.

Our aim here is to synthesise the results that we have obtained during the last

five years in assessing the evidence for bone tool utilisation at South and East African

early hominid sites, explore the significance of this evidence to identify early cultural

traditions, and evaluate the cognitive abilities of early hominids.

The South African evidenceBackground

In 1959 Robinson published a single bone tool from Sterkfontein Member 5 West

(c. 1,7–1,4 Mya) consisting of a pointed metapodial shaft fragment with evidence of

use on the tip. In the course of 24 years of excavation at Swartkrans, Brain (Brain et al.,

1988; Brain, 1989; Brain & Shipman, 1993) identified 68 bones, bovid horn cores and

one equid mandible from Members 1–3 (c. 1,8–1 Mya) bearing similar modifications.

Comparative microscopic analysis of the wear pattern on the smoothed tips of these

bones, and on modern shaft fragments used experimentally to dig up tubers and work

skins, suggested to Brain and Shipman (1993) that the surface modifications were

not natural, and that the activities they tested experimentally were indeed those in

which the Swartkrans tools were involved. Although Brain and Shipman’s work was

based on microscopic analysis of a number of specimens, their interpretation of these

bones as tools used for digging up tubers and working skins was not supported by a


244

systematic comparison of the purported tool morphology and wear pattern with those

produced by natural processes known to mimic anthropic modifications. Brain and

Shipman did not consider alternative functional interpretations, nor did they test them

experimentally by using appropriate analytical methods. Other potentially relevant

data (species, type of bone used, fracturing patterns, degree of weathering, bone

flake morphometry, spatial distribution) were not collected or discussed by Brain and

Shipman in the context of the site’s taphonomy. We have reappraised the function of

the South African bone tools using a multiple approach study based on data provided

by microscopic, taphonomic and morphometric analysis of the purported bone tools,

faunal material from the remainder of the assemblages, and experimentally and

naturally modified bone (Backwell, 2000; Backwell & d’Errico, 1999a, b, 2000, 2001,

2002a, b, c, 2003; d’Errico & Backwell, 2000, 2001, 2003; d’Errico et al., 2001).

MethodologySwartkrans and Sterkfontein Material

High-resolution dental impression material (Coltene President microSystem light

body surface activated silicone paste for moulds, and Araldite M resin and HY 956

Hardener for casts) were used to replicate the one Sterkfontein (SE) and 68 Swartkrans

(SKX) purported bone tools, and optical and scanning electron microscopy was used

to identify their surface modifications. Microscopic images of the transparent resin

replicas were digitised at 40x magnification on a sample of 18 fossils from Swartkrans.

The orientation and dimension of all visible striations was recorded by using

MICROWARE image analysis software (Backwell & d’Errico, 2000, 2001).

The collection of 23 000 bone fragments from Swartkrans was then taphonomically

studied and examined for specimens with a wear pattern similar to that recorded on the

purported bone tools from the same site (Fig. 1). Comparative taphonomic analysis was

conducted on Swartkrans because all but one of the putative tools come from this site,

and because the stratigraphic provenance of both tools and faunal remains is reliable.

In the course of research, 16 additional specimens (Fig. 2) from Swartkrans Members

1–3 that had wear comparable to that of the 69 previously described specimens were

identified, bringing the total to 85.

After investigation of the content and context of the Swartkrans material, the next

step involved the examination of 35 reference collections of modern and fossil bones

from open air and cave contexts (13 301 specimens) modified by 10 non-human agents

(hyaena, dog, leopard, cheetah, porcupine, river gravel, spring water, flood plain, wind,

and trampling) without evidence of human involvement. At a macroscopic scale, 24

of the pieces examined appeared similar to the SKX/SE specimens. Resin replicas of

these pseudotools were made and examined microscopically. A comparison was then


245

Figure 1 Typical wear pattern recorded on the tips of the Swartkrans bone tools consisting of sub-parallel individual

striations: (1–2) SKX 1142; (3–4) two aspects of SKX 35196; (5–6) close-up views of the same tool. Notice

how striations affect concave areas of the spongy bone (6) indicating that fine loose abrasive particles

were responsible for the wear pattern; (7–8) SKX 47045; (9) SKX 38830. Scale = 5 mm in 1, 3, 7, 9 and

1 mm in 2, 5, 6, 8 (d’Errico & Blackwell, 2003).


246

Figure 2 Sixteen newly identified Swartkrans bone tools: (a) SKX 8741; (b) SKX 30568; (c) SKX 19845; (d) SKX

39364; (e) SKX 36969; (f) SKX 8954; (g) SKX 47046; (h) SKX 34370; (i) SKX 29434; (j) SKX b; (k) SKX

47045; (l) SKX 2787; (m) SKX 39365; (n) SKX 9123; (o) SKX SEM; (p) SKX 5847. Scale = 1 cm.


247

made between the wear patterns on the SKX/SE fossils, those on two antelope long

bone shaft fragments used by Brain to dig up bulbs of Scilla marginata and Hypoxis

costata, and those on bone tools experimentally used by us. This last sample included

11 antelope limb bone shaft fragments and horn cores used to dig for tubers in a wide

range of soil types, scrape and pierce animal hides, and excavate termites from termite

mounds found in the Sterkfontein Valley today. The worn tips of these bones were

each replicated with dental impression material after 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes of

use. Resin replicas of the SKX/SE fossils and experimental tools were made, and then

examined under transmitted light. Image analysis was conducted on digitised images

of the wear patterns on 18 SKX/SE fossils, 9 of our experimental tools, and both of

the experimental tools used by Brain to dig up bulbs. Microscopic analysis of all of the

experimental tools was conducted to verify that they would have provided comparable

results.

Quantification of striation width and orientation comprising the wear pattern

on the SKX/SE tools suggested they were not used to extract tubers or work skins.

The wear pattern more closely fits that created experimentally when bone is used to

excavate in a fine-grained sedimentary environment, such as that found in the pre-

sorted sediment constituting termite mounds present in the Sterkfontein area (Fig.

3 and Fig. 4). This led us to propose that the main, if not exclusive, function of the

Sterkfontein and Swartkrans bone tools, and of the similar 23 undescribed specimens

from Drimolen (c. 2–1,5 Mya) (Keyser, 2000), was that of extracting termites. We also

showed that the wear on the bone tools does not represent an extreme in variation of a

taphonomic process affecting to a lesser degree the rest of the assemblage. In addition,

taphonomic analysis of the breakage patterns and size of the bone tools from this site,

compared with the remainder of the faunal remains, indicated that early hominids

selected heavily weathered, elongated and robust bone fragments for use as tools.

Evidence of grinding After identifying possible evidence of grinding on the tips of six horn cores and

a bone shaft fragment from Swartkrans (Fig. 5), we re-examined the 198 bovid horn

cores found in Members 1–3 to study the preservation of their tips. (Comparative

natural and anthropic traces were examined at microscopic level following the methods

described below.) One hundred and ninety-eight horn cores from Swartkrans were

compared with a sample of those recovered from the southern African Plio-Pleistocene

sites of Makapansgat (Maguire et al., 1980), Sterkfontein (Kuman & Clarke, 2000),

and Gondolin (Menter et al., 1999) to check whether modifications similar to those

observed at Swartkrans occur on the horn cores from these sites, and to characterise the

natural alterations affecting these pieces. We also examined the horn cores and sheaths


248

Figure 3 Wear pattern on Swartkrans and experimental bone tool tips photographed in transmitted light using

transparent resin replicas: (a) bone tool from Swartkrans Member 3 (SKX 38830); (b) tip of a tool used

in Brain’s experiment to dig up Scilla marginata bulbs; (c) experimental bone tool used to dig the ground

in search of tubers and larvae; (d) experimental bone tool used to dig in a termite mound. Note the

similarity in the orientation and the width of the striations in (a) and (d). Scale bar = 2 mm (Backwell &

d’Errico, 2001).


249

Figure 4 Image analysis of the wear patterns on the Swartkrans fossils and on experimental bone tools: (a) variability

(top graph) and mean (bottom graph) in the orientation of the striations on the Swartkrans tools (S), on

experimental tools used to dig termite mounds (T), to excavate the ground in search of tubers and larvae

(G), and to extract bulbs (B) (Brain’s experimental tools). An unpaired t-test has shown the orientation of

the striations on the Swartkrans and termite digging tools to be the most similar, and significantly different

from the other experimental tools; (b) striation width as measured at 40x magnification on all the striations

visible. A non-parametric statistical test has shown the striation width on all the experimental tools to be

significantly different from each other, but with the closest similarity recorded between the Swartkrans

and termite-digging tools.

of various African bovid skulls housed at the Bernard Price Institute, University of

Witswatersrand.

Later Stone Age arrow points, awls and fish gorges shaped by abrasion from Nelson

Bay Cave (Deacon & Brett, 1993), Die Kelders (Avery et al., 1997; Klein, 1994),

Goergap (Van der Ryst, 1998), Olieboomspoort (under analysis) and Rose Cottage

(Wadley, 1997), as well as worked Iron Age bone from the Mapungubwe Complex and

Kleinfontein sites, was also studied for comparative purposes. San arrow points and

link-shafts shaped through grinding, including an Australian aboriginal piece used for


250

magical ritual and manufactured using the same technique, were analysed. Experimental

material included long bone shaft fragments and horn cores experimentally ground

on granite, sandstone, and the surfaces of termite mounds of the genus Trinevitermes

found in the Sterkfontein Valley, South Africa.

Our results show that grinding is characterised by wide parallel striations orientated

oblique to the bone main axis (Fig. 6). These striations are morphologically different

from those produced by use-wear in that they have a fusiform (spindle-like) shape.

Also, longitudinal striations produced by use are recorded on concave surfaces while

Figure 5 Swartkrans bone tools bearing possible traces of grinding: (a) SKX 12383; (b) SKX 7068; (c) SKX 28876B;

(d) SKX 30215; (e) SKX 39364; (f) SKX 15536; (g) SKX 28437. Lines identify ground facets. Scale = 1 cm.


251

fusiform striations are restricted to facets. Comparative analyses confirm the existence

of intentional shaping by grinding on the Swartkrans pieces, indicating that southern

African early hominids had the cognitive ability to modify the functional area of bone

implements with a technique specific to bone material, in order to achieve optimal

efficiency in digging activities (d’Errico & Backwell, 2003).

Figure 6 SEM photos of traces of grinding on an aboriginal Australian bone point (a); Later Stone Age bone tools

from Kasteelberg B (b); and the Hunterian Museum collection (c); grinding on a termite mound (d); the

Swartkrans horncore SKX 15536 (e); and ulna SKX 39364 (f). Scale in (a) = 1 mm.


252

Stability in southern African early hominid bone tool useIn order to test whether the bone tools represent a continuous cultural tradition

that persisted unchanged for nearly a million years, or reflect a more flexible practice,

subjected to pressures determined by adaptation to changing environments and/or

cultural evolution, we analysed Swartkrans bone tools in search of patterns of variation

between Members.

A range of variables was used for the study of the bone tools. These related to

the species, animal size, type of bone used, fracturing patterns, degree of weathering,

shape and morphometry of the bone flake and of the worn area. Our results showed

no significant differences between the bone tools from Swartkrans Members 1–3. In

the three assemblages the majority of the specimens derive from the medial portion

of long bone shafts from mammal size classes II–III/III–IV. Though restricted to a

few specimens, the use of horn cores persists throughout all of the Members. The

high proportion of weathered bones selected to be used as tools also remains stable

throughout the stratigraphy. Only 5 of the 85 specimens comprising the enlarged

collection are complete, i.e. without post-depositional breakage, making it difficult to

establish whether significant variation occurs in the size or shape of the tools between

the Members. However, analysis of the breadth and thickness of complete tips at 5, 10,

15 and 20 mm from the tip reveals a remarkable dimensional similarity between tools

from Members 1 and 3, and a slight preference for more robust blanks among tools

from Member 2 (Table 1). The length of the wear ranges for the large majority of the

tools from the three Members, between 20 and 40 mm, and the frequency distribution

of this variable is virtually the same in the three assemblages. Based on our digging

experiments, this suggests comparable motions and a similar time-span for which the

tools were used.

Table 1 Comparison between the width, compact bone thickness, length of the bone tools and a representative

sample of long bone shaft fragments from Swartkrans Members 1–3.

Width Thickness Length

nMean(mm) SD n

Mean(mm) SD n

Mean(mm) SD

Bone tools 41 19,1 9,6 67 7,8 3,3 75 * 52,6 26,9

Unmodified shaft fragments 614 14,3 7,4 614 4,5 2,3 614 37,7 23,8

* broken bone tools


253

Spatial distribution of lithic and organic artefacts Analysis of the spatial distribution of bone and stone tools in Members 1–3 was

conducted to provide a better understanding of the catchment basin and the activities

carried out by early hominids at or near the site. These data provided a means by

which to address why these artefacts were there, for how long the subsistence strategy

they reflect was in existence, and by which hominid type(s) they were used (Backwell

& d’Errico, 2003).

Analysis of the stone tool assemblages from Swartkrans Members 1–3 shows that

they are not the result of in situ knapping activities (Clark, 1993; Field, 1999). The range

of flaking debris that one may expect to find in a flaking area is absent and there is no

refitting of pieces, suggesting lithics, as faunal and hominid remains gravitated down

the entrance shafts from the hillside exterior. This is consistent with the hypothesis

of a relatively low sedimentation rate, with material of different nature falling into

the cave from the hillside, but in Clark’s view does not exclude the possibility that

artefacts may from time to time have been introduced into the cave by hominids, an

event which is more likely to have occurred in Member 3 where a consistent amount of

burnt bone, a number of faunal remains with clear cut-marks, and evidence suggesting

the presence of a flat area were found. Field’s (1999) study of the stone tool collection

indicates that the proportion of bone tools versus lithics remains roughly similar in

the three members. Thus, considering the homogeneity in time of both categories,

this proportion is likely to reflect stability in the artefact catchment basin and in the

distance from the cave entrance of the activity area where the artefacts were discarded.

This proportion may also depend, if these activities were carried out very close to

the entrance, on a similar intensity of production and use of these two categories of

artefacts through time near the site.

The excellent state of preservation of the wear pattern on the bone tools suggests

that these artefacts were incorporated in the deposit relatively quickly and were

discarded relatively close to the site. In contrast, the stone tools show different degrees

of weathering. The different degrees of alteration indicate that, unlike bone tools, some

stone remained exposed to alteration processes in the landscape for longer. This suggests

that the catchment basin for the bone tools was smaller than that of the stone tools,

incorporating in the deposit bone artefacts discarded close to the entrance before being

altered or destroyed by taphonomic agents. The virtual absence of bone tools with poorly

preserved wear patterns suggests that if present in this larger area, the bone tools were

unable to reach the entrance of the cave before falling victim to taphonomic processes.

The bone tool spatial distribution (Fig. 7A) reveals that in each member the tools

come from a different area, with very little overlapping. The plot of Member 1 shows

two concentrations in the northeast quadrant, as well as three isolated instances in the


254

Figure 7 Spatial distribution of (A) bone and (B) stone tools in Members 1–3. The grey area represents the unexplored

in situ Member 1 Hanging Remnant.

southern quadrants. With the exception of one piece, the bone tools from Member 2

are scattered along a north–south axis in bands 4–6. As is to be expected, all the bone

tools from Member 3 lie within the restrictive Member 3 gully. The depth at which the

bone tools occur reveals a north–south slope in the vertical distribution of the bone

tools from Members 1 and 2, and an opposite trend in those from Member 3 (Fig. 8).

Interesting differences appear when we compare bone and stone tool distribution

patterns (Fig. 7A, B). Lithic artefacts from Member 1 cluster mainly in two areas located

in the northeast and southeast quadrants. The northern concentration, which has the

highest density of artefacts, corresponds in area and depth to the main concentration of

bone tools seen in this Member. However, no bone tools come from the 11 m2 making

up the southern concentration. Also, no lithic artefacts come from the 2 m2 near the

northern limit of the excavation where three bone tools were found at a considerable

depth. Whilst occurring in roughly the same area, bone and stone tools from Member


255

Figure 8 Vertical distribution of the Swartkrans bone tools from Members 1–3. Depths are means of the depth

interval at which the pieces were found.

2 differ significantly in their distribution density. The squares which have yielded the

highest number of lithics have yielded no bone tools, and the highest concentration

of bone tools comes from squares where comparatively few or no lithics were found.

Still a different situation is observed in Member 3, where the highest number of bone

tools was found. In spite of a significant overlap between the concentrations of the two

categories of artefacts, that of the bone tools appears skewed towards the northwest

of the quadrant. To this difference also corresponds a difference in the depth of the

objects, five bone tools having been found in W3 and W5 at a lower depth (550–700

cm) than any of the lithics from this member. It is interesting that the bone tools do

not share the same spatial and vertical distribution as the stone tools. This indicates

that in a number of instances the two types of artefacts did not enter the cave at the

same time. This difference suggests that the two types of tools were used in different

tasks, possibly reflecting seasonal activities conducted at a slightly different place or

time by most of the members of a hominid group, different members of the same

hominid type (male, female, juvenile) or different hominid taxa visiting the site.


256

Our spatial data demonstrate that bone tools were incorporated in the Swartkrans

deposits during the whole accumulation time of Members 1–3. This is significant in

that many of these pieces come from the Member 1 Lower Bank, and their proportion

relative to the rest of the faunal assemblage remains constant through all of the

members. This eliminates the possibility that the bone tools are recent intrusions in

substantially older deposits, as this would result in a decrease of their occurrence

from the top to the bottom of the sequence, which is not the case. Based on faunal

analysis, Member 1 falls within the time span 1,8–1,0 Mya. Members 2 and 3 do not

differ significantly from Member 1, and are assumed to be between 1,5 and 1,0 million

years old (Brain, 1993). However, evidence of mixing suggested by a reappraisal of the

palaeontological evidence (deRuiter, 2003) and by Electron Spin Resonance dating

(Curnoe et al., 2001), may however limit this time-span to between 1,8 and 1,5 Mya

(Member 1). If the faunal dating methods applied at Swartkrans are correct, it implies

that a bone tool culture existed unchanged in this region for nearly a million years.

The East African evidenceBackground

Mary Leakey (1971) reports 125 artificially modified bones and teeth from

Olduvai Beds I and II bearing evidence of intentional flaking, battering and abrasion

(Fig. 9). These specimens derive from massive elephant, giraffe and Libytherium limb

bones, and to a lesser extent from equids and bovids, as well as from hippopotamus

and suid canines. In a comprehensive reappraisal of this material, Shipman (1989)

correctly points out that Leakey’s identification of Olduvai bone tools was not based

on explicit criteria, and lacked analogies that would allow the ruling out of alternative

interpretations.

In her reappraisal of the Olduvai material, Shipman (1984, 1989) used a control

sample consisting of scanning electron microscope-analysed resin replicas of bones

submitted to a number of natural phenomena (weathering, chewing, licking, digestion,

wind, etc.), and experimental or ethnographic bone tools used for butchering, digging,

grinding, or hide and meat processing. Microscopic analysis of these collections

provided criteria (Shipman & Phillips-Conroy, 1977; Shipman et al., 1984; Shipman

& Rose, 1988) by which to identify the material on which bone tools were used (hides,

meats, soft vegetables), the kinesis and function (digging, bark-working, grinding hard

grains, butchery), and the duration (brief, moderate, extensive) for which they were

used. Shipman’s ability to distinguish between unused and used bones, and to identify

their main function, was verified through blind tests. The control sample also includes

experimental reproduction of wind abrasion through the use of an abrasion gun driven

by pressurised air. Sedimentary abrasion was mimicked using a tumbling barrel with


257

Figure 9 Olduvai bone tools proposed by Leakey: (a) BKII 068-6668; (b) BKII 068-6666; (c) DKI 067-4259; and by

Leakey and by Shipman (d) MNKII 068-6676; (e) FCII 068-6679; (f) SHKII 068-6688. Scale = 1 cm.


258

different types of sediments, with and without the addition of water. According to

Shipman, utilisation produces differential wear between functional and non-functional

zones of the tool, and at a microscopic scale, between more exposed and recessed/

concave areas, while aeolian and sedimentary abrasion with no water create a pitted

or pebbly texture, homogeneously altering the entire surface. Pits caused by striking

harder particles may occur on areas worn by utilisation, but they are irregularly spaced

and sized. Also, experimental abrasion only rarely creates scratches, while utilisation

on mixed substances produces glassy polish crossed by striations. Shipman stresses,

however, that these criteria are provisional and that further experimental studies of

abrasion are needed to firmly identify distinctive features.

Application of these criteria to 116 of the 125 pieces described by Leakey (teeth

were excluded from Shipman’s analysis) led her to conclude that 41 were utilised

by hominids and the remainder bore ambiguous traces or evidence of abrasion by

sediment. Four of the tools bearing punctures – a patella, astragalus, femoral condyle

and magnum – are interpreted as anvils due to the triangular or diamond shape of

the impressions, which are different from those produced by carnivores due to the

absence of counter-bites; large size of the bones difficult to bite; location of the marks

consistent with their proposed use, and their apparent antiquity. Shipman, following

Leakey, proposes that the marks on these tools may have been produced by stone awls

found in the same localities, and that they were used to pierce leather/hide.

Among the remaining 37 specimens diagnosed as implements, 35 are described

as bones broken and shaped by flaking prior to use. Twenty-six are interpreted as

light-duty implements used on soft substances (hide-working), and the remaining

11 described as heavy-duty tools utilised on mixed substances, perhaps in butchery

or digging activities. According to Shipman, wear patterns cannot be confused with

sedimentary abrasion or weathering, since bone tools show, with the exception of three

cases, a low degree of natural alteration. Variables such as taxon, body part, breakage

(location, orientation, type and number) and type of surface alteration (weathering,

abrasion) were recorded by Shipman on the 41 tools and on 350 randomly selected

bones from Olduvai and a few other sites. Comparison of these parameters indicated

that the bone tools had a significantly higher occurrence of flaked fractures, flake

scars and punctures, and a lower presence of stepped, jagged, or smooth fractures,

suggesting that the bone tools were broken shortly after the death of the animal. It also

showed that humeri, scapulae and femora, particularly from giraffids and elephants

– relatively rare taxa at Olduvai – are overrepresented among the bone tools.


259

MethodologyOlduvai material

The Olduvai bone tool collection housed in the Department of Archaeology at the

National Museums of Kenya in Nairobi consists of 125 specimens. These include the

pieces designated as tools by Leakey (1971), minus seven specimens described by her,

but that could not be located in the museum, and seven specimens not considered by

her as tools but that we considered relevant for the analysis (HWKEII 368; HWKEII

886; MNKII 23369; MNKII 1099; BKII 2494; BKII 068-6688; BKII 3240). Annotated

line drawings comprising 2–4 aspects of each specimen were made. These recorded the

location of macro- and microscopic modifications such as original or post-depositional

breakage, flake removals, punctures, carnivore traces, cut-marks, trampling and polish.

Recorded variables also included taxon, body part, bone region involved, dimensions of

each specimen, the weathering stage according to Behrensmeyer (1978), and location,

number, association and length of flake scars according to fracture axis. While some of

these variables have already been recorded by Shipman, others – such as the number,

location on the bone flake, occurrence on the periosteal versus medullar face, and

dimension of removals, possibly due to intentional shaping – were recorded in the

framework of the present study for the first time.

The same variables were recorded on a control sample of 86 randomly selected limb

bone shaft fragments from the FLKI, FLKNI, FLKII, BKII, MNKII and DKI Olduvai

sites. This was to establish whether the modifications recorded on the purported

bone tools did not represent an extreme in variation affecting, to a lesser degree, the

remainder of the Olduvai assemblage. Colour slides and digital images of 2–4 aspects

of each piece were also taken, in order to document the collection.

The same methods described for Swartkrans were used to make 76 replicas from

different areas of the purported tools and the control sample, which consisted of shaft

fragments from the FLKI, FLKII and MNKII Olduvai sites. Cast areas included the

edges of the tools, whether described by Shipman as utilised or not, regions located

away from the purported functional zones, and similar areas on the control specimens.

All puncture marks and some cut marks were also moulded. Transparent replicas were

examined in transmitted light and 300 digital micrographs were captured. Forty-one

replicas were analysed with a Scanning Electron Microscope (Bromage 1987; d’Errico

1988) and 380 SEM micrographs were taken at 15x to 350x magnification. The

presence of striations (either single or multiple, parallel or intersecting) and evidence

of smoothing, polishing, pitting, and possible residues were recorded.


260

Comparative collectionsThirty-five non-human reference collections of known taphonomic history were

examined and studied using the same microscopic techniques described above. These

represent nine damage categories derived from both modern and fossil contexts,

including animals (hyaena, dog, leopard, cheetah, porcupine) and geological processes

(river gravel, spring, flood plain, wind, trampling).

Experimental materialNine modern elephant limb bones, ranging between 9 and 22 kg each in weight,

were experimentally broken by 26 university students male and female. Eight of the

bones originated from a young adult about 20 years old that had died five months

before the experiment. Only one bone originated from a teenage individual and was

weathered. The experiment was conducted at Plovers Lake in the Sterkfontein Valley,

South Africa. The students were asked to work in groups of 3–5 in order to break the

bones and produce flakes, employing only resources available in the environment.

Knapping of bone flakes was attempted by one of us (FD) using elongated pebbles to

replicate the flake removals recorded on the Olduvai purported bone tool collection.

Un-retouched flakes were used for flaying and cutting the fresh meat from an adult

male eland, working fresh hides with the addition of sand, drying hides with the

addition of salt, and digging in soil to extract tubers and grubs, as well as removing

bark from trees.

ResultsComparative microscopic analyses of the purported tool edges, areas far from the

potential functional zones, and edges of bone pieces from the remainder of the Olduvai

assemblage, show that the modifications recorded on all of them can be attributed

to post-depositional abrasion. Apart from two pieces bearing traces of repeated

percussion, a probable bone wedge, and one flake with a macroscopically worn tip, the

remainder of the Olduvai purported bone tools do not provide unambiguous evidence

of utilisation. However, analysis of the number, location and length of flake scars in

the Olduvai bone tool collection reveals that a reduced proportion of purported bone

tools bear invasive, contiguous, often bifacially arranged removals not seen in the

remainder of the Olduvai assemblage, nor on our experimentally broken elephant

bones, elephant bones broken by other researchers, or flaked bones from hyaena dens.

This makes these pieces good candidates for having been intentionally modified and

used, probably in the butchering of large mammals. One large flake resulting from

experimental breakage of elephant bones is noteworthy in that it has a remarkable

‘hand axe’-like morphology with contiguous pseudo-removals on both ends that


261

mimic pseudo-bifacial shaping at its base (Fig. 10). In spite of its general resemblance

to an Acheulean stone hand axe or to one of the Acheulean elephant bone hand axes

from the Italian sites (Radmilli, 1985; Radmilli & Boschian, 1996), this piece has no

invasive contiguous bifacial scars.

Only two of the four pieces interpreted by Leakey and by Shipman as anvils, a

giraffe astragalus (BKII 2933) and an elephant patella (FLKII 884), were located in the

National Museums of Kenya (Fig. 11). Our reappraisal of these pieces has taken into

account criteria proposed by other authors for identifying the causes of impressions

on bone, as well as observations made on our experimentally broken elephant limb

bones. Our analysis confirms Leakey’s and Shipman’s diagnosis of these bones as

anthropically modified. We believe, however, that an interpretation of these objects

as hammers used on intermediate stone tools, rather than anvils on which to pierce

Figure 10 Bone flake resulting from experimental breakage of elephant limb bones with a hand-axe-like

morphology.


262

skins, fits the evidence better. Experimental piercing of leather (d’Errico et al., 2003)

shows that a rotating motion is needed to effectively perforate this material and leave

a suitable non-tearing hole. If exerted against a bone surface, this motion results in

circular or semicircular impressions with curved internal striations, not seen on the

Olduvai specimens. Also, striking motions are unsuitable for piercing skin at precise

locations, as generally required by this activity. Piercing a skin by striking it against

a bone anvil requires a relatively large and stable bone. Neither of the bones appears

large enough, and the patella is particularly unstable. The dispersed location of the

punctures on the patella and the location of some impressions near the edge also

cast doubt on the anvil interpretation, since the bone would have been destabilised

by the striking force. The morphology of these bones, which fit comfortably in the

hand, and their use in single-session hammering tasks, is instead consistent with their

Figure 11 Top: Astragalus from Olduvai (BKII 2933) with close-up view showing puncture marks. Bottom: Elephant

patella from Olduvai ( FLKII 884) with punctures on the articular surface.


263

designation as hammers used on intermediate stone tools, most likely wedges to split

bones, fruit or wood.

Contrasting South and East African evidenceThere are two means by which to establish the artefactual nature of potential

bone tools showing ambiguous traces of manufacture and use. The first entails the

documentation of possible evidence of utilisation, and the demonstration that the

recorded modifications, if interpreted as resulting from use, cannot be the outcome of

other taphonomic processes.

Using this approach, our results suggest not only that the SKX/SE specimens were

real tools, but also that they were predominantly used to dig in termite mounds.

The same interpretation may apply to the 23 undescribed, but similarly worn bone

tool pieces recently found at the Drimolen early hominid site (Keyser et al., 2000),

suggesting that bone tool-assisted termite extraction was a persistent component of

the subsistence behaviours of early hominids in this area. It is clear that termites were

present in this region during the deposition of Swartkrans Members 1–3 by the direct

evidence of termite-feeding taxa such as Proteles sp. (aardwolf; Members 1 and 3),

Orycteropus afer (antbear; Members 1, 2, and 3), and Manis sp. (pangolin; Member

3) represented in the Swartkrans faunal collection (Watson, 1993). Circumstantial

evidence is provided by termite damage identified on some fossils in the Swartkrans

faunal collection (Newman, 1993). Using chimpanzees to model early hominid

behaviour, we argue for an implement-assisted termite-foraging cultural tradition

among southern African hominids, and the role of insectivory in the early hominid diet.

We also propose tool utilisation by robust australopithecines, based on the absence of

Homo remains in Swartkrans Member 3 (where the largest collection of bone tools was

found), and the abundance of Paranthropus robustus remains at Drimolen (found in

association with many bone tools and only two possible stone tools). This hypothesis

is consistent with independent isotope analyses that show a significant proportion of

protein in the diets of both Homo and Paranthropus robustus – the latter traditionally

considered a vegetarian.

Comparative microscopic analysis of different areas of the purported Olduvai

tools, and of the edges of bone pieces from the rest of the bone assemblage (control

sample), suggests that possible modifications due to utilisation are indistinguishable

from features attributed to post-depositional abrasion. This conclusion is reached after

a systematic microscopic survey of the purported bone tools and control sample from

Olduvai. Experimental and comparative non-human-modified bone collections were

similarly surveyed, involving optical and Scanning Electron Microscopic inspection

of hundreds of specimens. Additionally, further visual comparison and the recording


264

of features on a comparable amount of SEM micrographs were conducted. We cannot

exclude the possibility that similar research by Shipman has made her more adept

than we are in the identification of anthropic use-wear, as distinct from other causes.

If this is the case, however, one has to acknowledge that her criteria for making this

distinction and differentiating between task-specific tools are not clear. Robust criteria

are essential if inferences from this type of archaeological evidence are to be made,

accepted by a scientific community, and become shared knowledge reinforced by

repeatable results. Future analyses of the identification of anthropic use-wear should

include the quantification of possible worn areas and the development of appropriate

analogues. At present, the SEM is perfectly suited to documenting microscopic features;

however, if it is the only diagnostic tool used, it may provide deceptive results for this

site, in that gentle, mechanical sedimentary abrasion appears to have affected most of,

if not the entire Olduvai assemblage, overprinting potential evidence of use-wear.

It is noteworthy that experimentally used bone tools show that tasks involving a

high degree of mechanical abrasion, such as digging in soil or working hide with sand,

produce distinct localised macroscopic modifications on the active zone of the tool.

Considering the excellent state of preservation of the more probable Olduvai tools,

one would expect that the presence of use-wear generated by these aggressive tasks

should be easily detected on the edges of tools. With the possible exception of two

pieces (BKII 201, MNKII 1741), no evidence of localised macro-wear is observed on

the probable tools. This suggests that they may have been used in activities such as

butchering, which do not significantly alter the tool edge.

The second means by which to identify ambiguous bone tools is through the

recognition of intentional modifications for the purpose of shaping the artefact, and

the demonstration that such modifications cannot be ascribed to natural agents, or be

the by-product of other subsistence activities. Our identification of possible traces of

grinding on seven Swartkrans bone tools led to a comprehensive description of this type

of modification, and analysis of a wide range of comparative material for verification.

Our results show that grinding is characterised by wide parallel striations orientated

oblique to the bone main axis. These striations are morphologically distinct from those

produced by use-wear, are limited to facets only, and do not occur as natural alterations

in large collections of modern and fossil horn cores. The fusiform striations recorded on

the tips of some Swartkrans specimens closely match those observed on archaeological

and experimental material where grinding was used as a shaping technique.

Villa and Bartram (1996) correctly caution against the interpretation of flaked bones

as evidence of bone shaping without the support of contextual and taphonomic analysis

of the bone assemblage. They report on bones of medium-sized to large herbivores

from the Pleistocene hyaena den of Bois Roche in France bearing continuous scars that


265

in some cases mimic scaling retouch. A carnivore origin for the flake scars on the more

convincing Olduvai bone tools cannot be advocated for a number of reasons. Almost

all of the Bois Roche ‘flaked’ bones show clear signs of hyaena damage in the form of

heavy gnawing of articular ends, and pitting and scoring on shafts, features that are

rare at Olduvai and virtually absent on the specimens interpreted as tools. Instead,

the majority of these pieces record diagnostic stone-induced percussion marks, in a

number of cases clearly associated with flake scars. Additionally, pseudo-retouch at

Bois Roche is small relative to bone size and does not invade the surface of bones from

large mammals by more than 15 mm on the pieces illustrated by Villa and Bartram.

This is in stark contrast to the more invasive removals recorded on the Olduvai bone

tools. If carnivores were responsible for the production of flake scars recorded on the

bone tool collection at Olduvai, we should find the same number and proportion of

contiguous removals on bone from medium-sized to large mammals in the Olduvai

control sample, but this is not the case.

Our results indicate that Mary Leakey was right in isolating a collection of bones that

in her opinion looked different from the others emerging at Olduvai, and in proposing

their interpretation as tools. This was mainly intuitive, relying on morphological

similarities between flake scars on stone and putative bone tools. Our results show

that many pieces comprising her original collection do not differ significantly from

the control sample, and may be similarly interpreted as intentionally shaped tools

or the result of marrow extraction. We also identify a reduced number of specimens

that confirm her contention that the bones were tools used by hominids. In order to

differentiate between marrow extraction and intentional shaping, future research will

focus on the experimental breakage and knapping of extremely fresh bone from very

large mammals. Recorded differences in the morphology of the flake scars produced

on experimentally broken elephant bones suggest that those on the Olduvai specimens

were produced immediately after the animals’ death. The breakage of large bones in

the same condition can provide an appropriate analogue by which to gather more

informed inferences on early bone tool use by East African hominids.

ConclusionIn sum, South and East African early hominid sites dated to between 1,8 and 1

Mya have yielded what appear to be very different types of bone tools. The former

are characterised by long bone shaft fragments and horn cores of medium-sized to

large bovids, collected after weathering, and possibly used in specialised digging

activities. Bone tools of similar shape and size, bearing the same wear patterns and

spanning approximately the same time period, occur at Sterkfontein and Drimolen,

confirming that a southern African bone tool culture existed for possibly as much as a


266

million years. Some pieces record intentional shaping of the tips through grinding – a

technique peculiar to this raw material.

Those from East Africa consist mainly of freshly broken, or more rarely, complete

irregular bones from very large mammals, used as such or modified by flaking.

Irregular bones or epiphyses appear to have been used as hammers, while the others

were apparently involved in a variety of light- and heavy-duty activities. Usage of the

end product may be related to multiple tasks, but was most probably restricted to large

mammal carcass processing.

What are the reasons for such differences? Were these bones used by the same or by

different hominid species, if not taxa? If the first applies, do they reflect different cultural

traditions? One may expect, if this is the case, to find additional differences between

these two regions in other aspects of material culture and adaptation. Although the

Oldowan is associated with sites from both regions, this lithic technology appears to

occur in East Africa at least more than half a million years earlier than in South Africa

(Kibunjia, 1994; Semaw et al., 1997, 2003; Kuman, 1994, 2003; Kuman & Clarke,

2000). This gap may be due to a time lag in the diffusion of this behaviour, staggered

independent invention, or a scarcity of late Pliocene deposits in South Africa. Since

few studies (Petraglia & Korisettar, 1998) have tried to address this question through

detailed comparative technological analysis of contemporaneous lithic assemblages,

as currently conducted by Roche’s team on East African sites (Roche et al., 1999), it

is problematic at present to know whether what is generally called Oldowan in these

two regions corresponds to a single cultural tradition, or is the expression of distinct

regional trends. However, our identification of two distinct bone tool cultural traditions

in East and South Africa demonstrates that variability in bone tool manufacture may

provide a means independent of lithic technology to address crucial behavioural issues

and the characterisation of early hominid cultural traditions.

The hand-axe-like morphology of one of the flaked bone tools from Olduvai (FCII

068-6679; Fig. 9e) may be taken as an indication that bone shaping by knapping is

associated with an Early Acheulean Industry traditionally assigned to Homo erectus.

Broken stone bifaces are reported from the same Olduvai locality where the hand-axe-like

bone tool was found, but this does not exclude other hominids such as Australopithecus

boisei or Homo habilis as the potential makers and users of these tools in East Africa, nor

does it exclude Paranthropus robustus as the maker of the South African bone tools. If the

bone tool implements in both East and South Africa are purely extensions of the Early

Acheulean Industry, then they are presumably adapted to different regions and slightly

variable resources. They may also be simply an extension of a single species’ behaviour

(possibly Homo erectus). However, the presence of bone digging tools in South Africa

might be directly associated with a specific type of epigeal termite mound, or a resource


267

specific to this region, and this may account for their atypical Acheulean morphology.

The absence of knapped bone flakes in South African sites, and of South African-type

digging implements in East Africa, suggests that two distinct bone tool cultures existed

in Africa during the same time period, either as extensions of a single species’ behaviour

as noted above, or due to manufacture by two different hominid taxa.

Based on the bone tool manufacturing techniques recorded in East and South African

sites, there appear to be no significant differences between the cognitive abilities of the

hominid users, despite their being geographically separated. Evidence of intentional

flaking by knapping, seen on the Olduvai bone tools, and traces of grinding on those

from South Africa, suggests that the makers of the tools had a clear understanding

of the properties of bone, could anticipate the end product, and conceived shaping

techniques specific to this raw material in order to achieve optimal efficiency in the

tasks for which they were used. Evidence of grinding on the South African bone tools

spans Members 1–3 at Swartkrans, indicating that this technique did not appear as

an innovation within an existing bone tool culture, but rather represents an integral

component of this long-standing tradition.

The emergence of bone tool use is clearly not coincidental with the emergence of

the genus Homo, but does correspond with the emergence of Homo erectus. In southern

Africa, it is also coincident with the emergence of Paranthropus robustus. This suggests,

in light of the virtual absence of bone tools in the later African Acheulean and early

Middle Stone Age, that early bone tool industries do not represent, as postulated in

the past, the first step in a process of increasing sophistication, the beginning of which

has been viewed as the behavioural counterpart of the emergence of our genus. In

addition, results presented here show that the use of bone and its shaping into task-

specific tools need not imply modern cognitive abilities, and should not, as recently

proposed by other authors, be considered as a hallmark of behavioural modernity.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Francis Thackeray and Heidi Fourie for facilitating access

to the Swartkrans material, and Bob Brain and Darryl de Ruiter for helpful information

and discussions on the Swartkrans site formation process and taphonomic context. We

thank P. Bushozi of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania and A.G.

Kaaria of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in Kenya for permission

to study the Olduvai material. We are most grateful to Meave Leakey, Mary Muungu

and Karega Munene of the National Museums of Kenya for facilitating access to the

collections. We also thank Pat Shipman for her assistance at the start of the project,

and Cathy Snow for carefully reading a first draft of the manuscript. This research

was funded by the Ernest Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, the Palaeoanthropological


268

Scientific Trust, the Cultural Service of the French Embassy in South Africa, the French

Ministry for Education and Science, OMLL/ESF Program, Human Sciences Research

Council and Nedcor Foundation.

References Aguirre, E. (1986). Format et technique dans la fracturation d’ossements à Torralba (Soria-

Espagne). In (M. Patou, Ed.) Artefacts 3. Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de Cervidés, pp.

81–89. Treignes: CEDA.

Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Goldberg, P., Grine, F.E., Klein, R.G., Lenardi, M.J., Marean, C.W.,

Rink, W.J., Schwarcz, H.P., Thackeray, A.I. & Wilson, M.L. (1997). The 1992–93 excavations

at Die Kelders Middle and Later Stone Age cave site, South Africa. Journal of Field Archaeology

24, 263–91.

Backwell, L.R. (2000). A Critical Assessment of Southern African Early Hominid Bone Tools.

MSc. Dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (1999a). The application of SEM, confocal microscopy and image

analysis to assess the first use of bone by early hominids. Microscopy Society of Southern Africa

38th Annual Conference, 1–3 December 1999, University of the Free State, South Africa.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (1999b). A reassessment of ‘bone tools’ from the early hominid sites

of Swartkrans and Sterkfontein. Archaeological Sciences 99 Conference, 20–22 September,

University of Bristol, United Kingdom.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (2000). A new functional interpretation of the Swartkrans early

hominid bone tools. Abstract for the Paleoanthropology Society Meeting. Journal of Human

Evolution 38(3), A4–A5.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (2001). Evidence of termite foraging by Swartkrans early hominids.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(4), 1358–1363.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (2002a). Possible evidence of deliberate shaping on the Swartkrans

early hominid bone tools. Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists,

Book of Abstracts, p. 39. 10–14 April 2002. New York.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (2002b). What the bones tell us. New information on the Swartkrans

early hominid bone tools. Palaeontological Society 12th Biennial Meeting, Book of Abstracts,

p. 8. 3–7 October, Bloemfontein.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (2002c). Microscopic evidence for deliberate shaping of bone

tools by South African early hominids. 15th International Congress on Electron Microscopy,

Proceedings 2. Biology and Medicine, pp. 625–626. 1–5 September 2002. Durban.

Backwell, L.R. & d’Errico, F. (2003). Additional evidence on the early hominid bone tools from

Swartkrans with reference to spatial distribution of lithic and organic artefacts. South African

Journal of Science 99, 259–267.

Beaumont, P., de Villiers, H. & Vogel, J. (1978). Modern man in sub-Saharan Africa prior to


269

49,000 BP: a review and evaluation with particular reference to Border Cave. South African


Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1978). Taphonomic and ecological information from bone weathering.

Paleobiology 4, 150–162.

Biddittu, L. & Segre, A. G. (1982). Utilizzazione dell’osso nel Paleolitico inferiore Italiano,

Atti della XXIII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protost, pp. 89–105.

Florence.

Biddittu, I. & Bruni, L. (1987). Il rinvenimento di una amigdala in osso del Paleolitico inferiore

a Fontana Ranuccio (Anagni). Latium 4, 3–10.

Binford, L.R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.

Bonifay, E. (1974). Outils en os et os utilisés dans le Paléolithique ancien du Mas des Caves à

Lune-Viel (Héraut) (Note préliminaire). In (H. Camps-Fabrer, Ed.) L’industrie de l’os dans la

Préhistoire, pp. 157–167. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.

Bonnichsen, R. & Sorg, M.H. (1989). Bone Modification. Orono: University of Maine Centre for

the Study of the First Americans. Thompson-Shore Inc. United States of America.

Brain, C.K. (1967). Bone weathering and the problem of bone pseudo-tools. South African


Brain, C.K. (1981). The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Brain, C.K. (1989). The evidence of bone modification by early hominids in southern Africa. In (R.

Bonnichsen & M.H. Sorg, Eds) Bone Modification, pp. 291–297. Orono: University of Maine.

Brain, C.K., ed. (1993). Swartkrans: a Cave’s Chronicle of Early Man. Transvaal Museum

Monograph 8. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Brain, C. K. & Shipman, P. (1993). The Swartkrans bone tools. In (C.K. Brain, Ed.) Swartkrans:

a Cave’s Chronicle of Early Man, pp. 195–215. Transvaal Museum Monograph 8. Pretoria:

Transvaal Museum.

Brain. C.K., Churcher, C.S., Clark, J.D., Grine, F.E., Shipman, P., Susman, R.L., Turner, A. &

Watson, V. (1988). New evidence of early hominids, their culture and environment from the

Swartkrans cave, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 84, 828–835.

Breuil, H. (1932). Pointe d’épieu en os du Moustérien de la caverne du Castillo (Santander).

L’anthropologie 42, 679–680.

Breuil, H. (1938). Bone and antler industry of the Chou-Koutien Sinantropus site. Paleontologia

Sinica 6, Beijing.

Breuil, H. & Barral, L. (1955). Bois de cervidés et autres os travaillés sommairement au Paléolithique

ancien du vieux monde et au Mustérien des grottes de Grimaldi et de l’Observatoire de Monaco.

Bulletin du Musée d’Anthropologie Préhistorique de Monaco 2, 3–34.

Bromage, T. G. (1987). The SEM/replica technique and recent applications to the study of fossil

bone. Scanning Electron Microscopy 1987, 607–613.


270

Brooks, A.S., Helgren, D.M., Cramer, J.S., Franklin, A., Hornyak, W., Keating, J.M., Klein, R.G.,

Rink, W.J., Schwarcz, H., Leith Smith, J.N., Stewart, K., Todd, N.E., Verniers, J. & Yellen, J.E.

(1995). Dating and context of three Middle Stone Age sites with bone points in the Upper

Semliki Valley, Zaïre. Science 268, 548–553.

Bunn, H.T. (1981). Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from

Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291, 574–577.

Bunn, H.T. (1982). Meat-eating and Human Evolution: Studies on the Diet and Subsistence

Patterns of Plio-Pleistocene Hominids in East Africa. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton

University.

Cahen, D., Haesaert, P., van Neer, W. & van Pamel, P. (1979). Un outil en os du Paléolithique

inférieur dans la nappe alluviale de Mesvin. Hélinium 19, 105–127.

Cassoli, P.F., De Guilii, C., Radmilli, A.M. & Segre, A.G. (1982). Giacimento del Paleolitico

inferiore a Malagrotta (Rome). Atti della XXIII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di

Preistoria e Protostoria, pp. 531–549. Florence.

Chase P.G. (1990). Tool-making tools and Middle Paleolithic behaviour. Current Anthropology

31(4), 443–447.

Clark, J.D. (1993). In Swartkrans. A Cave’s Chronicle of Early Man, ed. C.K. Brain, pp. 167–194.

Transvaal Museum Monograph 8. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Curnoe, D., Grün, R., Taylor, L. & Thackeray, F. (2001). Direct ESR dating of a Pliocene hominin

from Swartkrans. Journal of Human Evolution 40, 379–391.

Dart, R.A. (1957). The Osteodontokeratic culture of Australopithecus prometheus. Transvaal

Museum Memoirs 10. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Deacon, J. & Brett, M. (1993). Peeling away the past: The display of excavations at Nelson Bay

Cave. South African Archaeological Bulletin 48, 98–104.

Deacon, H.J. & Deacon, J. (1999). Human Beginnings in South Africa: Uncovering the Secrets of the

Stone Age. Cape Town: David Philip.

Debenath, A. & Duport, L. (1971). Os travaillés et os utilisés de quelques gisements préhistoriques

charentais. Mémoires de la Société Archéologique et Historique de la Charente, pp. 183–201.

Dennell, R. (1983). European Economic Prehistory: A New Approach. New York: Academic Press.

d’Errico, F. (1988). The use of resin casts for the study of usewear. In (S.L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning

Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, British Archaeological Report, pp. 155–167. Oxford.

d’Errico, F. & Villa, P. (1997). Holes and grooves. The contribution of microscopy and taphonomy

to the problem of art origins. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 1–31.

d’Errico, F. & Backwell, L.R. (2000). Bone tool use and the identification of early hominid

cultural traditions. New data from Swartkrans and Sterkfontein. 11th Biennial Conference

of the Palaeontological Society of Southern Africa. 4–8 September 2000. Pretoria: Transvaal

Museum.

d’Errico, F. & Backwell, L.R. (2001). Early hominid cultural traditions and technical systems: the


271

full picture. Possible evidence of bone tool shaping from Swartkrans, South Africa. Knapping

Stone. A Unique Hominid Behaviour? International Workshop. 21–24 November 2001. Abbaye

des Prémontrés, Paris.

d’Errico, F. & Backwell, L.R. (2003). Possible evidence of bone tool shaping by Swartkrans early

hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1559–1576.

d’Errico, F., Zilhão, J., Baffier, D., Julien, M. & Pelegrin, J. (1998). Neanderthal acculturation in

western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Current Anthropology

39, 1– 44.

d’Errico, F., Backwell, L.R., & Berger, L.R. (2001). Bone tool use in termite foraging by early

hominids and its impact on understanding early hominid behaviour. South African Journal

of Science 97, 71–75.

d’Errico, F., Julien, M., Liolios, M., Vanhaeren, M. & Baffer, D. (2003). Many awls in our

argument. Bone tool manufacture and use from the Chatelperronian and Aurignacian layers

of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cur. In (J. Zilhão & F. d’Errico, Eds) The Chronology

of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies,Cultural

Implications. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia.

deRuiter, D. (2003). Revised faunal lists for Members 1–3 of Swartkrans, South Africa. Annals of

the Transvaal Museum 40, 29–41.

Dobosi, V.T. (1990). Description of the archaeological material. In (M. Kretzoi & V.T. Dobosi,

Eds) Vértesszölös, Site, Man and Culture, pp. 311–395. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

Fernández-Carriba, S. & Loeches, A. (2000a). Fruit smearing by captive chimpanzees: a newly

observed food processing behavior. Current Anthropology 42(1), 143–161.

Fernández-Carriba, S., Loeches, A. & Morcillo, A. (2000b). Fruit smearing: a case of food

transformation in captive chimpanzees. Animal Behavior Society Meeting. Atlanta, GA,

August 2000.

Field, A.S. (1999). An Analytical and Comparative Study of the Earlier Stone Age Archaeology of

the Sterkfontein Valley. Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation. University of the Witwatersrand.

Freeman, L.G. (1978). Mousterian worked bones from Cueva Morin (Santander, Spain). A preliminary

description. In (L.G. Freeman, Ed.) Views of the Past, pp. 29–51. The Hague: Mouton.

Freeman, L.G. (1983). More on the Mousterian flaked bone from Cueva Morin. Current

Anthropology 24(3), 366–377.

Gaudzinski, S. (1998). Middle Palaeolithic bone tools from the open-air site Salzgitter-Legensted

(Germany). Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 125–141.

Gaudzinski, S. (1999). The faunal record of the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Europe:

remarks on human interference. In (W. Roebroeks & C. Gamble, Eds) The Middle Palaeolithic

Occupation of Europe, pp. 215–233. Leiden: University of Leiden.

Gautier, A. (1986). Une histoire de dents: les soi-disant incisives travaillées du Paléolithique

moyen de Sclayn. Hélinium 26, 177–181.


272

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (1989). Ethnographic analogues for interpreting modified bones: some

cases from east Africa. In (R. Bonnichsen & M.H. Sorg, Eds) Bone Modification, pp. 179–246.

Orono: University of Maine Centre for the Study of the First Americans. Thompson-Shore

Inc. United States of America.

Haynes, G.A. (1988). Longitudinal studies of African elephant death and bone deposits. Journal

of Archaeological Science 15, 131–157.

Haynes, G. (1991). Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants: Biology, Behaviour and the Fossil

Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Henri-Martin, G. (1907). Similitude de certains os naturels et de quelques pièces osseuses

préhistoriques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 4, 432–436.

Henshilwood, C.S. & Sealey, J. (1997). Bone artefacts from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos

Cave, southern Cape, South Africa. Current Anthropology 38(5), 890–95.

Henshilwood, C.S., d’Errico, F., Marean, C.W., Milo, R.G. & Yates, R. (2002). An early bone tool

industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the

origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. Journal of Human Evolution

41(6), 631–678.

Howell, C., & Freeman, L.G. (1983). Ivory points from the earlier Acheulean of the Spanish

Meseta. In Homenaje al Prof. Martin Almagro Basch, pp. 41–61. Madrid: Ministerio de

Cultura.

Justus, A. (1989). Der Altpaläolitische fundplatz Dmanisi in Georgien (Kaukasus), (Knochen-

und geweihbearbeitung). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 36,

107–108.

Keyser, A. (2000). New finds in South Africa. National Geographic May, 77–83.

Keyser, A., Menter, C.G., Moggi-Cecchi, J., Pickering, T.R. & Berger, L.R. (2000). Drimolen:

a new hominid-bearing site in Gauteng, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96,

193–197.

Kibunjia, M. (1994). Pliocene archaeological occurrences in the Lake Turkana basin. Journal of

Human Evolution 27, 159–171.

Kitching, J.W. (1963). Bone, Tooth and Horn Tools of Palaeolithic Man: An Account of the

Osteodontokeratic Discoveries in Pin Hole Cave. Derbyshire. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

Klein, R.G. (1975). Palaeoanthropological implications of the non-archaeological bone

assemblage from Swartklip I, south-western Cape Province, South Africa. Quaternary

Research 5, 275–288.

Klein, R.G. (1994). Southern Africa before the Iron Age. In (R.S. Corruccini & R.L. Ciochon,

Eds) Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell,

pp. 471–519. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Klein, R.G. (1999). The Human Career, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


273

Kuman, K. (1994). The archaeology of Sterkfontein – past and present. Journal of Human

Evolution 27, 471–495.

Kuman, K. (2003). Site formation in the early South African Stone Age sites and its influence on

the archaeological record. South African Journal of Science 99(5/6), 251–254.

Kuman, K. & Clarke, R.J. (2000). Stratigraphy, artifact industries and hominid associations for

Sterkfontein, Member 5. Journal of Human Evolution 38, 827–847.

Leakey, M.D. (1971). Olduvai Gorge, Volume 3: Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960–1963. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole I – technique et langage. Paris: Albin Michel.

Lemonnier, P. (1986). The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical

systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147–186.

Lyman, R.L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Maguire, J.M., Pemberton, D. & Collett, M.H. (1980). The Makapansgat Limeworks Grey

Breccia: Hominids, hyaenas, hystricids or hillwash ? Palaeontologia Africana 23, 75–98.

Malerba, G. & Giacobini, G. (1998). Les retouchoirs sur éclats diaphysaires du Paléolithique

moyen et supérieur de trois sites de l’Italie nord orientale (Grotte de San Bernardino, Abri de

Fumane et Abri Tagliente). In Atti del XIII Congresso U.I.S.P.P, Forlí 1996 6(I), 167–171.

Mania, D. & Weber, T. (1986). Bilzingsleben III. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften: Berlin.

McBrearty, S. & Brooks, A.S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the

origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563.

McGrew, W.C. (1996). The material of culture. In (R.W. Wrangham, W.C. McGrew, F.B.M. de

Waal & P.G. Heltne, Eds) Chimpanzee Cultures. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Menter, C.G., Kuykendall, K.L., Keyser, A.W. & Conroy, G.C. (1999). First record of hominid

teeth from the Plio-Pleistocene site Gondolin, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 37,

299–307.

Newman, R.A. (1993). The incidence of damage marks on Swartkrans fossil bones from the

1979–1986 excavations. In (C.K. Brain, Ed.) Swartkrans: a Cave’s Chronicle of Early Man, pp.

217–228. Transvaal Museum Monograph 8. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Noble, W. & Davidson, I. (1996). Human Evolution, Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Olsen, S.L. (1989). On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archaeological antler.

Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 125–135.

Pei, W.C. (1938). Le rôle des animaux et des causes naturelles dans la cassure des os.

Palaeontologia Sinica. Peiping: Geological Survey of China, 7, 1–16.

Petraglia, M.D. & Korisettar, R.I. (1998). Early Human Behavior in Global Context: The Rise and Diversity

of the Lower Palaeolithic Record. One World Archaeology, No. 28. New York: Routledge.


274

Pitts, M. & Roberts, M. (1997). Fairweather Eden: Life in Britain Half a Million Years Ago as

Revealed by Excavations at Boxgrove. London: Century.

Radmilli, A.M. (1985). Scavi nel giacimento del Paleolitico inferiore di Castel di Guido presso

Roma. In (A.M. Bietti Sestieri, Ed.) Preistoria e Protostoria nel territorio di Roma, pp. 75–85.

Rome: De Luca.

Radmilli, A.M. & Boschian, G. (1996). Gli scavi a Castel di Guido. Florence: Instituto Italiano di

Preistoria e Protostoria, ETS.

Roche, H., Delagnes, A., Brugal, J.-P., Feibel, C., Kibunjia, M., Mourre, V. & Texier, P.-J. (1999).

Early hominid stone tool production and technical skill 2.34 Myr ago in West Turkana,

Kenya. Nature 399, 57–60.

Schlanger, N. (1994). Mindful technology: unleashing the chaine operatoire for an archaeology

of mind. In (C. Renfrew and E.B. Zubrow, Eds) The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive

Archaeology, pp. 143–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Semaw, S., Renne, P. Harris, J.W.K. Feibel, C.S., Bernor, R.L. Fesseha, N. & Mowbray, K. (1997).

2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. Nature 385, 333–336.

Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Quade, J., Renne, P., Butler, R.F., Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Stout, D.,

Hart, W.S., Pickering, T.R. & Simpson, S. (2003). 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and

associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution

45, 169–177.

Shipman, P. (1984). The earliest tools: re-assessing the evidence from Olduvai Gorge. Anthroquest

29, 9–10.

Shipman, P. (1988). Actualistic studies of animal resources and hominid activities. In (S.L.

Olsen, Ed.) Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, pp. 261–285. BAR International

Series 452, Oxford.

Shipman, P. (1989). Altered bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: Techniques, problems, and

implications of their recognition. In (R. Bonnichsen & M.H. Sorg, Eds) Bone Modification,

pp. 317–334. Orono: University of Maine Centre for the Study of the First Americans.

Thompson-Shore Inc. United States of America.

Shipman, P. & Phillips, J. (1976). On scavenging by hominids and other carnivores. Current


Shipman, P. & Phillips-Conroy, J. (1977). Hominid tool-making versus carnivore scavenging.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46, 77–86.

Shipman, P. & Rose, J. (1984). Cutmark mimics on modern and fossil bovid bones. Current


Shipman, P. & Rose, J. (1988). Bone tools: An experimental approach. In (S.L. Olsen, Ed.) Scanning

Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, pp. 303–335. BAR International Series 452. Oxford.

Shipman, P., Fisher, D.C. & Rose, J.J. (1984). Mastodon butchery: microscopic evidence of

carcass processing and bone tool use. Paleobiology 10(3), 358–365.


275

Singer, R. & Wymer, J. (1982). The Middle Stone Age at Klasies River Mouth in South Africa.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Stepanchuk, V.N. (1993). Prolom II, a Middle Paleolithic site in the Eastern Crimea with non-

utilitarian bone artefacts. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 17–37.

Sutcliffe, A.J. (1973). Similarity of bones and antlers gnawed by deer to human artefacts. Nature

246, 428–430.

Sutcliffe, A.J. (1977). Further notes on bones and antlers chewed by deer and other ungulates.

Deer 4(2), 73–82.

Van der Ryst, M.M. (1998). The Waterberg Plateau in the Northern Province, South Africa, in

the Later Stone Age. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 43. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Villa, P. & Bartram, L. (1996). Flaked bone from a hyaena den. Paleo 8, 143–159.

Villa, P. & d’Errico F. (1998). Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic: a

review of the evidence from Western Europe. Abstract for the Paleoanthropology Society

Meeting. Journal of Human Evolution 36(4), 25–26.

Vincent, A. (1988). Rémarques préliminaires concernant l’outillage osseux de la Grotte Vaufrey.

In (J.P. Rigaud, Ed.) La Grotte Vaufrey à Cenac et Sain-Julien (Dordogne). Paleoenvironnement,

chronologie et activités humaines, pp. 529–533. Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique

Française 19.

Wadley, L. (1997). Excavations at Rose Cottage Cave. South African Journal of Science 93, 439–

444.

Watson, V. (1993). Composition of the Swartkrans bone accumulations, in terms of skeletal

parts and animals represented. In (C.K. Brain, Ed.) Swartkrans: a Cave’s Chronicle of Early

Man, pp. 35–73. Transvaal Museum Monograph 8. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W.C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama & Tutin, C.E.G.

(1999). Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399, 682–685.

Yellen, J.E., Brooks, A.S., Cornelissen, E., Mehlman, M.J. & Stewart, K. (1995). A Middle Stone

Age worked bone industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaïre. Science 268, 553–556.

Zilhão, J. & d’Errico, F. (1999a). Reply to Straus, Mellars and Otte. Current Anthropology 40(3),

355–364.

Zilhão, J. & d’Errico, F. (1999b). The chronology and taphonomy of the earliest Aurignacian and

its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction. Journal of World Prehistory

13(1), 1–68.

From Tools to Symbols: from Early Hominids to Modern Humans, edited by Francesco d'Errico & Lucinda...

Documents

Transcript of From Tools to Symbols: from Early Hominids to Modern Humans, edited by Francesco d'Errico & Lucinda...