The Elephant in the Handaxe: Lower Palaeolithic Ontologies and Representations

Ran Barkai

Indigenous hunter-gatherers view the world differently than do WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) societies. They depend—as in prehistoric times—on intimate relationships with elements such as animals, plants and stones for their successful adaptation and prosperity. The desire to maintain the perceived world-order and ensure the continued availability of whatever is necessary for human existence and well-being thus compelled equal efforts to please these other- than-human counterparts. Relationships of consumption and appreciation characterized human nature as early as the Lower Palaeolithic; the archaeological record reflects such ontological and cosmological conceptions to some extent. Central to my argument are elephants and handaxes, the two pre-eminent Lower Palaeolithic hallmarks of the Old World. I argue that proboscideans had a dual dietary and cosmological significance for early humans during Lower Paleolithic times. The persistent production and use of the ultimate megaherbivore processing tool, the handaxe, coupled with the conspicuous presence of handaxes made of elephant bones, serve as silent testimony for the elephant–handaxe ontological nexus. I will suggest that material culture is a product of people’s relationships with the world. Early humans thus tailored their tool kits to the consumption and appreciation of specific animal taxa: in our case, the elephant in the handaxe.

When we look about us on the earth, what we see is col- some of the largest mammals that ever walked on ored by our worldview and the languages that we use to Earth, is endangered and geographically restricted describe our observations. A landscape of streams and to regions of Africa and Asia. (‘Elephant’ refers to lakes, mountains and rich valleys, shared by thousands all members of the Proboscidea taxonomic order, of species of plants and animals, is understood through extant and extinct). Seven million years ago, the the lens of the western materialist worldview as a wealth human clade underwent its earliest evolutionary of ecosystem services or natural resources. In contrast, through the lens of traditional Indigenous philosophy divergence in Africa, while megaherbivores, includ- the living world is understood, not as a collection of ing several proboscidean taxa, were distributed exploitable resources, but as a set of relationships and across the globe and showed impressive taxonomic responsibilities. diversity and richness (Faith et al. 2018). Therefore, Kimmerer (2018, 27) human evolutionary history is characterized by the co-existence of humans and proboscideans, and the prehistoric archaeological record testiﬁes to human– Introduction elephant interactions throughout time and space. In parts of Asia and Africa, close to the equator, the Today a thriving human lineage occupies every con- human–elephant interaction continues today, follow- tinent, whereas the elephant lineage, comprising ing a legacy of hundreds of thousands of years. In

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31:2, 349–361 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/coredoi:10.1017/S0959774320000360. IP address:Received 170.106.33.19 8 Aug 2019;, on Accepted27 Sep 2021 25 at Aug 12:26:29 2020;, subject Revised to the 12 Cambridge Jul 2020 Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000360 Ran Barkai

Europe, the rest of Asia and America, however, this a manifestation of Lower Palaeolithic cosmologies interaction ended at the terminal Pleistocene, with and ontologies, centred on the elephant. the extinction of proboscideans. In specific regions in Africa and the Levant, however, the disappear- Fat, meat and the role of elephants in indigenous ance of elephants seems to have occurred during hunter-gatherer societies the Middle Pleistocene and was linked to significant cultural and technological transformations in human Most indigenous hunter-gatherer societies depend behaviour and adaptation strategies (Barkai et al. to a significant extent—as they did in prehistoric 2017; Ben-Dor et al. 2011; Blasco et al. 2019a,b; Potts times—on calories extracted from land and sea mam- et al. 2018). Prehistoric sites throughout the Old mals. This was true mostly during Lower and Middle and New Worlds present ubiquitous evidence for Palaeolithic times, when megaherbivores roamed the the significant role in diet and culture elephants landscape presenting the highest biomass density played in early human adaptation and well-being (Ben-Dor & Barkai 2020) and continued ever since, during the Palaeolithic (c. 2 million–10,000 years although the extent of plant consumption by humans ago). Proboscidean remains are found in many rose since the late Quaternary extinction of mega- Pleistocene sites and are associated with several fauna some 40,000 years ago. Fat and meat fuelled human species (e.g. Homo erectus, H. neanderthalensis human biological and cultural evolution, and the and H. sapiens). well-documented indigenous craving for fat and Palaeolithic nutrition was based on animal meat meat in recent societies (e.g. Biesele 1993; Tanner and fat, in addition to vegetal sources, and archaeo- 2014) is also reflected at prehistoric sites throughout logical sites bear evidence of elephant exploitation the Old and New Worlds by the ubiquitous presence for dietary purposes by the use of stone tools. I of the remains of consumed prey and the emphasis argue that Proboscideans, when available, provided on fat acquisition (e.g. Ben-Dor et al. 2011; 2016; an unprecedented food-package for early humans, Blasco et al. 2019b; Boschian et al. 2019; Morin 2020; and that actually successful human subsistence Solodenko et al. 2015; Speth 2020). depended largely on megaherbivores. Moreover, Fat and protein have been recognized as essen- the central role of elephants as a food source, coupled tial elements in human diet during the Pleistocene with the social and behavioural similarities between (e.g. Bunn 2006; Domínguez-Rodrigo & Pickering elephants and humans (Lev & Barkai 2016), might 2017), in addition to complementary calories from explain the inclusion of these animals in early vegetal sources (Hardy et al. 2015). Fat and protein human cosmology and symbolic expressions (most from animal carcasses are a source of essential vividly expressed in Palaeolithic parietal and mobile amino acids, minerals, vitamins and fatty acids imagery: see e.g. Braun & Palombo 2012; Hussain & (Friedman 1996; Givens et al. 2006). Fat provides 9 Floss 2015). calories/gramme at a minimal digestion cost, while Homo erectus, the ancestor of Homo sapiens and carbohydrates and protein provide only 4 calories/ Neanderthals, was obliged by their increased body gramme, and hence fat is the densest form of energy size and energetically expensive brain and by the available in nature (Outram 2002). Its taste, too, ceiling on the amount of protein they could safely has been documented to be favoured by humans digest to consume large animals high in fat. An asso- (Reshef & Barkai 2015), and it is plentiful in large her- ciation between the large-brained Homo erectus and bivores even when other resources are scarce. the increased consumption of meat and fat, asso- Human protein consumption is also known to have ciated also with primary access to carcases, has been accepted ceilings, dependent on the ability of the noted (e.g. Aiello & Wheeler 1995; Pobiner et al. liver and renal system to dispose of its by-products 2008), with some researchers concluding that Homo (Ben-Dor et al. 2011; 2016). Thus, on average, humans erectus evolved to be a member of the hypercarnivore are able to gain only about one-third of their daily guild (e.g. Domínguez-Rodrigo & Pickering 2017; calorific intake from meat (Speth 2020). Vegetal Werdelin & Lewis 2013). I highlight the significance food is not always available and accessible, its pro- of proboscideans in human diet, culture and well- cessing is demanding and its digestion is energetic- being in the Lower Palaeolithic, as well as the persistent ally costly (Ben-Dor & Barkai 2020). Prior to the production and use of the iconic Acheulean han- habitual use of fire, plant consumption for dietary daxes. I argue towards a dual functional-ontological proposes must have been minimal (Barkai et al. link between elephants and handaxes and suggest 2017). Fat is available year-round, there are no that the extraordinary pattern of using broken ele- physiological limitations on its consumption and it phant bones for the production of bone handaxes is provides ultra-nutritious and tasty calorific supply.

350

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.33.19, on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:26:29, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000360 The Elephant in the Handaxe

Homo erectus (senso lato) appeared on the scene similar fats distributed throughout the body would be some two million years ago in Africa, equipped with a conservative figure, and thus a medium-sized mam- ∼ extended brain capacity, large body size and digestive moth would have stored 1 million kcal as fat, provid- ing clean energy for a hunting group of 12–24 and dental systems adapted towards high-energetic – foods capable of sustaining the large brain and body individuals for approximately 9 18 days, while the consumption of variable amounts of meat would have (e.g. Aiello & Wheeler 1995; Domínguez-Rodrigo & extended this figure for some days. (Guil-Guerrero Pickering 2017; Zink & Lieberman 2016). Animal fat et al. 2018, 461) and marrow provided the necessary food intake for the essential daily energy expenditure, especially in cases where plants were not available in abundance It should be stressed that the above calculations do and prior to the habitual use of fire for cooking not take into consideration the consumption of (Ben-Dor et al. 2011). The Lower Palaeolithic archaeo- bone marrow, one of the most elementary nutrients logical record is indeed consistent with such a scen- and a favourable source of calories for Palaeolithic ario (Barkai et al. 2017; Domínguez-Rodrigo & humans (Boschian et al. 2019). Thus, when the contri- Pickering 2017). This dependency on meat and fat bution by bone marrow is added to the sum of cal- led to the regular acquisition of animal carcasses by ories provided by a proboscidean, the quality and hunting (as well as scavenging) and a preference for significance of this food package is surely unprece- megaherbivores such as elephants, mostly because dented. Moreover, African Pleistocene elephants they provided large quantities of high-quality fat were much larger and heavier than the European (Agam & Barkai 2016; 2018; Guil-Guerrero et al. 2018). mammoths (up to 8–10 tons in weight); their dietary The hunting of very large animals, including potential is thus much higher than the above esti- elephants, was surely demanding, but does not mates. In addition, recent research on the fat compos- require extraordinary means (Agam & Barkai 2018; ition of juvenile frozen mammoths shows a rare Churchill 1993;Lewis2015). Moreover, the preferred nutritional value of their fat itself, with a high con- human consumption of large animals can be centration of polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are deduced from the decline, and even disappearance, known to build up cell membranes. Fat from juve- of large animal populations in Pleistocene Africa niles also had a higher nutritional profile due to and the Levant (Ben-Dor & Barkai 2020; Ben-Dor milk intake (Guil-Guerrero et al. 2014). These nutri- et al. 2011; Potts et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2018) and tional properties, the large number of juvenile ele- from the prominent role of elephants, along with phant bones found at various sites and the better other large mammals, at Early and Middle Pleistocene taste of young animal fat might indicate a preference hominin sites worldwide. for proboscidean calves by Pleistocene humans Proboscideans, with their large size and high fat (Reshef & Barkai 2015). Moreover, it should be high- content, must have been an essential source of cal- lighted that isotopic studies indicated time and again ories for early humans. In analysis of mammoths that Palaeolithic humans consumed proboscidean found in permafrost Siberia (Guil-Guerrero et al. meat and fat even in the absence of relevant bones 2018), fat-rich organs were suggested to be of ultim- in the faunal record, strongly indicating the under- ate importance for Stone Age hunters: representation of the role of megaherbivores in the Palaeolithic human diet (Bocherens 2009; 2011). Brain, bone marrow, subcutaneous fat, viscera and meat Likewise, it was recently argued that both human would have been the targeted mammoth organs for behaviour in the past and the methods of calculating Stone Age hunters and given the high energy needs of the contribution of large animals to the human diet Stone Age hunters, protein-rich food, such as meat, in the present actually mask and underappreciate should have been ingested to a lower extent than other human dependency on calories provided by mega- fatty tissues. (Guil-Guerrero et al. 2018, 459) herbivores (Ben-Dor & Barkai in press; Bocherens in Moreover, the authors suggested that the fat avail- press). able from large mammals would have provided sus- Palaeolithic sites demonstrate the ubiquitous tenance for a group of people for an extended period: consumption of large herbivores by early humans and it is becoming rather evident that hunting was Achieving 4500 kcal, the previously estimated daily practised as a primary procurement strategy for fi energy need at those times, would have been possible humans to meet their calori c and nutritional demands by consuming ∼566 g of meat complemented by ∼592 (Bunn 2019; Domínguez-Rodrigo & Pickering 2017). g of fatty tissues, such as subcutaneous fat. For a mam- There is also ample evidence that, during the moth of ∼3.0 tons, ∼5% subcutaneous fat and other Palaeolithic, elephant bones were used as material

351

for tool production. Proboscidean bones were animal carcasses (Fig. 2), and in particular carcasses also used as fuel and as material for constructing of large herbivores (e.g. P. Jones 1980; 1981; Key & dwelling structures and windbreaks. Furthermore, Lycett 2015; 2017). elephants and mammoths are also significantly A previous paper (Finkel & Barkai 2018) represented in Palaeolithic parietal depictions and addressed the dissonance between the alleged ‘stasis’ mobile ‘art’ in Upper Palaeolithic Europe and in the of the Acheulian handaxe for over one million years production of non-utilitarian items such as bone and the significant transformations in culture and handaxes in Europe, Africa and Asia during Lower biology throughout the Lower Palaeolithic period. Palaeolithic times (Barkai 2019; Gaudzinski et al. Most research on this topic suffers from neophilia, 2005; Hussain & Floss 2015; Zutovski & Barkai 2016). the enthusiasm towards what is new and novel. We suggested instead that while persistency was pre- Lower Palaeolithic stone handaxes, and ferred in handaxe manufacture and use, innovation the peculiar presence of handaxes made of took place at other realms of human behaviour and elephant bone adaptation, enabled by the stability provided by the familiar mode of adaptation based on the assured Stonetoolsprovideauniquewindowintothemode performance of the good old handaxe. We high- of adaptation and cognitive abilities of Lower lighted the dependency of Acheulean hominins on Palaeolithic early humans. As stone tools (along megaherbivores for sustaining their energetic needs, with animal bones) are often the sole remains of and the significance of handaxes in supplying cal- early human activities, the persistently produced ories by efficiently processing large game. We argued large cutting tools (bifaces/handaxes) have long that the pivotal role of the handaxe in Acheulean been an appealing focus of research in the recon- adaptation accorded it its fixed position in struction of Lower Palaeolithic survival strategies. Acheulian technology and culture following human In general, Lower Palaeolithic stone-tool technolo- conformity and majority imitation. In short, we pro- gies are characterized by flakes and flakes shaped posed that the persistence of the Acheulean handaxe as tools, while the canonic handaxe is considered acted as an adaptive mechanism based on preferred as the most prominent Acheulian tool-type (see cultural conservatism, which allowed and enabled Finkel & Barkai 2018). Handaxes (Fig. 1) are rela- the successful adaptation of Lower Palaeolithic tively large items shaped by bifacial flaking that human groups in the Old World for over one million reflects skilled production and in many cases years. extended life-history. Despite recent research that It is true that Acheulean handaxes might have strongly highlights the variability and complexity been used to process large animal carcasses other of Acheulean lithic technologies, and most promin- than elephants (for example horse processing at ently the role of flakes in human adaptation (e.g. Boxgrove; see Pope & Roberts 2005). In other cases, Agam et al. 2015;Lycett&Gowlett2008; Venditti carcasses of large mammals such as elephants and et al. 2019a), the canonic handaxe still attracts horses seem to have been processed without han- most of the scholarly attention and is still consid- daxes (e.g. Aureli et al. 2015; Gallotti & Peretto ered as a hallmark of the Acheulian. 2015; Van Kolfschoten et al. 2015). Thus, the alleged The available functional, technological, and elephant-handaxe nexus is not obligatory for every experimental data imply that Lower Palaeolithic encounter people had with elephants, but depends handaxes were most probably employed in animal upon specific circumstances and interactions. Even carcass processing (e.g. P. Jones 1980; Keeley 1980, if certain elephants, in certain situations, were con- 160–70; Machin et al. 2007; Mitchell 1996; ceived as other-than-human persons that must be Solodenko et al. 2015). However, this issue is still treated, processed and consumed with respect, this hotly debated. Handaxes were sometimes in oper- need not always be the case. This point can be clari- ation in the execution of tasks not related to animal fied by the case of Ojibwa ontology regarding how carcass processing (e.g. Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. objects such as stones can, in certain circumstances, 2001; Hardy et al. 2018; Zupancich et al. 2018), and become animate: thus it was suggested that handaxes acted as multi- purpose tools. I argue that the available data point Since stones are grammatically animate, I once asked an towards repeated archaeological association of ani- old man: Are all the stones we see about us here alive? fl ‘ mal carcasses and handaxes (e.g. Goren-Inbar et al. He re ected a long while and then replied, No! But ’ ... 2018; Solodenko et al. 2015) as well as the efficient some are . Whereas we should never expect a stone use of handaxes in de-fleshing and dismembering to manifest animate properties of any kind under any

352

Figure 1. A handaxe from late Acheulean Revadim, Israel.

Figure 2. A replica of a ﬂint handaxe used in experimentation of deer butchery. (Courtesy of Ruth Blasco and Jordi Rosell.)

circumstances, the Ojibwa recognize, a priori, potential- animate properties, and, as we shall see, Flint is repre- ities for animation in certain classes of objects under sented as a living personage in their mythology. certain circumstances. ...The Ojibwa do not perceive (Hallowell 1960, 24) stones, in general, as animate, any more than we do. The crucial test is experience. Is there any personal More elaborate arguments appear in a wonderful, testimony available? In answer to this question we can recently published book describing the lives of say that it is asserted by informants that stones have stone tools in Gamo hide workers ontology in been seen to move, that some stones manifest other Ethiopia (Arthur 2018). In the same spirit, a study

353

of the Nayaka hunter-gatherers of southern India stone (Zutovski & Barkai 2016). The striking similar- reveals their intimate familiarity with each and ity between handaxes made of the butchered ele- every elephant sharing the forest with them, while phant bones and the stone handaxes that were foreign elephants are treated differently and are not most probably used in the butchery of these ele- expected to demonstrate the norms of appropriate phants is striking. We have suggested the use of behaviour the Nayaka generally share with the ele- the butchered elephant bones for shaping replicas phants they know so well (Bird-David & Naveh of the stone handaxes served as an expression of 2008). Thus, I would suggest that the co-occurrence early Acheulean humans’ sense of dissonance at con- of handaxes and elephants at the same sites, some- suming these majestic animals with which they times together with handaxes made of butchered ele- shared the world, and perhaps also an ontological phant bones, might reflect intimate and purposeful act of ensuring the continuation of this Acheulean interactions with specific elephants, while other ele- mode of existence. I will further argue that butchered phants might have been treated differently (in light elephant bones were purposely selected to allow of such a perspective, see a similar suggestion early humans to ‘become elephants’ and to maintain regarding treating specific individual horses in the the special relationship between the species, much in Upper Palaeolithic Magdalenian: Birouste 2020). accordance with the arguments presented in Tanner As handaxes were also used in tasks other than (2014) and similarly to the way indigenous groups carcass processing, I suggest that Lower Palaeolithic practised—or practise—their ontology about the ani- hominins were much less rigid and more practical mals they depend upon. It is of note that Sano et al. than presumed. Thus, they manipulated objects in (2020) provide the first unequivocal evidence for varied ways and contexts, according to changing the use of a 1.4 million-year-old bone handaxe from relationships and interactions. This perspective con- Konso in carcass processing. I suggest that this tradicts neither the general pattern or effectiveness important discovery further supports a dual func- of handaxes in processing large game nor the chrono- tional and perceptual role for these items: use of a logical and geographical association between probos- biface does not negate a complementary role in signi- cideans and bifaces. The production and use of fying the relationships of early humans with the bifaces persisted as long as elephants and mammoths megafauna who sustained them and with the cosmos were around (Ben-Dor et al. 2011; Potts et al. 2018), in general. Moreover, the occasional use of an excep- while after their disappearance, new stone tool tech- tional handaxe produced from megafauna bone does nologies and modes of adaptation were introduced not preclude any symbolic meaning. The same holds, (Barkai et al. 2017; Blasco et al. 2019a,b; Venditti by the way, for the stone handaxes. Given the abun- et al. 2019b). dance of suitable stones at Konso, the decision to Early humans not only consumed elephant fat transform a bone flake into a handaxe, despite and meat but also broke up elephant bones and stone’s better workability and efficiency in butchery, extracted bone marrow, particularly from limb testifies to an exceptional, conscious act—an act of bones (Boschian et al. 2019). Acheulean early humans reverence that sheds light not only on the techno- sometimes also used elephant bones beyond their logical sophistication of the Acheuleans, but also on immediate nutritional benefit, in manufacturing arte- their perception of the world. facts that closely resemble the iconic Acheulean stone handaxe (Zutovski & Barkai 2016). Although Lower Ontological and cosmological theories of the world Palaeolithic Acheulean bone handaxes appear across among indigenous hunter-gatherers a wide geographical range, they are a small-scale phenomenon. Bone bifaces were manufactured very Anthropological and archaeological thinking regard- similarly to the iconic stone handaxe and following ing the relations between indigenous groups and the shared elements of design and dexterity (Costa 2010). world in which they live suggests that past and pre- Acheulean bone bifaces were mostly produced sent hunter-gatherers were not simply exploiting nat- from elephant bones (Figs 3–4). All eight archaeo- ural resources. These societies view the world as logical sites analysed (Zutovski & Barkai 2016) con- composed of other-than-human persons potentially tained many skeletal elements of other large capable of thinking, feeling and decision-making. In herbivores, on top of the proboscidean bones avail- this unique and complex view, multiple worlds able at those sites. Nonetheless, only a single han- might exist in parallel: a world of humans, a world daxe was shaped from the bones of other taxa than of animals, a world of stone, a world of mountains, elephants. Moreover, bone handaxes were found a world of rivers, and so on. The human world is only at sites also containing handaxes made of just one of many, and humans are expected to live

354

Figure 3. An elephant bone handaxe from Fontana Ranuccio, Italy. (Courtesy of Margherita Mussi.)

Figure 4. Elephant bone handaxe from Castel di Guido, Italy. (Courtesy of Giovanni Boschian.)

side-by-side with the other entities, maintain good This worldview had an important expression in relations with them and pay them respect in order the seeming duality of humans perceiving animals to ensure world order and well-being (e.g. Alberti both as other-than-human persons and equal 2016; Betts et al. 2015; Boyd 2017; Hill 2011; 2013; co-habitants of a shared habitat while also hunting A. Jones 2017; Kohn 2015; Loring 1996; Nadasdy and consuming these animal-persons (Barkai 2019; 2007; Tanner 2014; Viveiros de Castro 1998). Nadasdy 2007; Tanner 2014; Willerslev 2013). The

355

debate regarding human universals (Antweiler 2016; all chronologies and might be reflected in the exten- Brown 1991; 2004) is beyond the scope of this paper. sive exploitation of animal carcasses at archaeo- While scholars highlight the diversity in hunter- logical sites (e.g. Barkai et al. 2017; Blasco et al. gatherers’ lifeways which is caused mostly by spe- 2019a,b), in the shaping of selected inedible animal cific ecological adaptations (e.g. Fisher 2020; parts into tools (Barkai 2019; Blasco et al. 2013; Hitchcock 2019) and/or contact with what Henrich Zutovski & Barkai 2016), the use of inedible animal et al. (2010) call WEIRD societies, it can be argued body parts in certain activities (Conneller 2004) and that certain commonalities do characterize the indi- the insertion of animal bones in rock cracks at deco- genous mode of existence, or what Barnard (2002) rated caves (Clottes 2009; Garate et al. 2019). I would had termed ‘The foraging mode of thought’. These not expect this to be the case at every archaeological might include core-values such as sharing, self- site where humans interacted with animals, and much provisioning, personal autonomy, egalitarianism of the evidence of such an ontological stance might and animistic ontology which are expressed by have not been preserved. However, I am confident behavioural phenomena such as singing, dancing, that the body of evidence will grow if archaeologists fire-side storytelling, communicating with the cos- will be more open to the possibility of unearthing it. mos via altered states of conciseness, craving for Then, common terms such as ‘ritual’, ‘symbolism’, meat and fat and close encounters with animals ‘ceremony’, ‘deposits’, ‘art’ and ‘ornaments’ might be and plants (e.g. Dyble et al. 2016; Lavi & Friesem better understood within this ontological framework, 2019; Lee 2006). In my view, these communalities as part of the complex human–animal relationships. are shared to some extent by past and present hunt- The anthropocentric worldview so characteristic of ing societies, and specifically their reciprocal relation- WEIRD societies would best be discarded and ship with the game animals they are dependent replaced with a more cosmos-centric approach that upon. Such relationships are reflected in activities better lends itself to reconstructing past human both mundane and sacred. engagements with the world (in the spirit of the A recurrent idea in many recent indigenous work of Lucero 2018). societies is that prey animals willingly make themselves available to humans only if the hunters dem- To please the elephant: concluding remarks onstrate appropriate behaviour towards them. In return, humans are obliged to treat the hunted ani- The relationships between hunters and the animals mal with respect, waste nothing of the carcass, and they share the world with (but also hunt, kill and follow strict customs regarding the use and disposal consume) are often reflected by hunters identifying of the inedible remains: themselves with the hunted animal, being ‘trans- formed’ into an animal during the hunt and often A central attribute in the conduct of hunting is that game adopting the hunted animal’s perspective and even animals are persons and that they must be respected. sharing its feelings and emotions (e.g. Guenther The rules of respect after the killing involve essentially 2015; Lewis-Williams & Biesele 1978; Russell 2017). taking care of all elements of the carcass, and not allow- Hunters commonly make use of all parts of the ing anything to be thoughtlessly discarded. Thus blood prey, after the edible parts have been consumed, in and intestines are consumed, buried in the snow, or order to manufacture items such as hunting gear, fed to the dogs; bones are made into tools, hung in the trees, put on bone platforms, or put in a lake, and all pendants, clothing and footwear, and amulets. uneaten meat is fed to the dogs or put in the fire. They even sometimes conceal selected animal body (Tanner 2014, 202) parts on their body during the hunt (e.g. Betts et al. 2012; McNiven & Feldman 2003; Russell 2017; Ž ́ And Tanner goes even further: ivaljevic 2015). This behaviour is not only an out- come of practical necessity but is also a token of The more commonly held belief is that the inedible appreciation towards the animals and a mechanism remains continue to be part of the species as a whole, aimed at both showing respect and perpetuating and their proper treatment is a way of avoiding giving the significant relationships people had with these offence to the master of the species in question, thus animals. enabling hunting to continue. (Tanner 2014, 261) The ‘nothing is wasted’ concept is another facet of hunter–hunted relationships aimed at pleasing the I suggest that these traits of the ontological relation- animals (Burnham 1992; Loring 1996). The selection ships between hunters and their prey should be and use of an animal body parts is far from acciden- sought in prehistoric archaeological assemblages of tal and not directed solely by practical or technical

356

considerations. As many have argued, it is an expres- by Levallois, to be replaced later by systematic blade sion of the hunters’ obligation to respect their prey production, once viewed through the lenses of the (e.g. Tanner 2014). The intimate physical contact changes in animal taxa available to humans (as pro- between the hunters and the item made from the boscideans were replaced by horses and cattle, which hunted animal allows the former access to the ani- were later replaced by deer, and so on) and the pos- mal’s perspective and to ‘transform’ into the animal sible relationships humans maintained with the spe- during the hunt and during carcass processing and cific animal taxa they were dependent upon. These consumption. They are thus granted the skills and factors might have led to the anchoring of specific strength of the respective animal, effectively enabling technological adaptations as mediators, both prac- the hunters to ‘become’ their prey. This perspective tical and perceptual, between humans and pivotal was beautifully demonstrated in a reconstruction of animal taxa, as in our case of the elephant in the the role of deer ‘masks’ in Mesolithic Britain: the handaxe. masks were suggested not to comprise ‘practical’ elements used in the hunt or ‘symbolic’ elements with Ran Barkai no clear explanation, but rather to consist of purpose- Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures fully selected deer body-parts that enabled the hun- Tel-Aviv University ters to transform into a deer (Conneller 2004). Ramat Aviv 6997801 In this paper I have argued that early humans Tel-Aviv shared the world with large herbivores, depended Israel on fat and meat for their successful adaptation and Email: [email protected]; [email protected] well-being, and had special relationships with the animals they depended upon. Elephants are a salient example, as some proboscideans were viewed at the same time as other-than-human persons and an References essential and significant source of calories. But this special relationship extended to all other prey ani- Agam, A. & R. Barkai, 2016. Not the brain alone: the nutritional potential of elephant heads in Paleolithic sites. mals as well, each taxon with its own special qual- – fi Quaternary International 406, 218 26. ities and the speci c tool-kit oriented towards its Agam, A. & R. Barkai, 2018. Elephant and mammoth hunt- processing and appreciation. ing during the Paleolithic: a review of the relevant Humans were repeatedly preoccupied by the archaeological, ethnographic and ethno-historical procurement, exploitation and appreciation of ele- records. Quaternary 1(1), 3. phants and other large herbivores. Thus, hunting Agam, A., O. Marder & R. Barkai, 2015. Small flake pro- and carcass processing were central practices in duction and lithic recycling at Late Acheulean human life, well embedded in both practical and Revadim, Israel. Quaternary International 361, 46–60. ontological adaptation strategies. I therefore suggest Alberti, B., 2016. Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review – that specific technologies were associated with spe- of Anthropology 45, 163 79. cific animal taxa, or a combination thereof, first for Aiello, L.C. & P. Wheeler, 1995. The expensive-tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive system in practical and then also for perceptual reasons, and human and primate evolution. Current Anthropology that these relationships lasted as long as these animal 36(2), 199–221. taxa existed and supported human adaptation. I fur- Antweiler, C., 2016. Our Common Denominator: Human uni- ther argue that the dependency of human groups on versals revisited. Oxford/New York: Berghahn. specific animal taxa was a driving force behind the Arthur, K.W. 2018. The Lives of Stone Tools: Crafting the sta- development of appropriate and specific technolo- tus, skill, and identity of flintknappers. Tucson (AZ): gies and tool-kits oriented towards both successful University of Arizona Press. hunting and processing as well as respecting and Aureli, D., A. Contardi, B. Giaccio, et al., 2015. maintaining good relationships with these animals. Palaeoloxodon and human interaction: depositional In this regard, the changing representations of ani- setting, chronology and archaeology at the Middle mal taxa, and more specifically the decline in avail- Pleistocene Ficoncella site (Tarquinia, Italy). PLoS One 10(4), e0124498. ability of large animals throughout the Pleistocene, Barkai, R., 2019. An elephant to share: rethinking the ori- led human groups to change their tool-kits accord- fi gins of meat and fat sharing in Paleolithic societies, ingly in order to t the practical and ontological in Towards a Broader View of Hunter Gatherer necessities of consuming and appreciating different Sharing, eds N. Lavi & D.E. Friesem. Cambridge: animal taxa. This approach might explain techno- McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, logical changes such as the replacement of handaxes 153–67.

357

Barkai, R., J. Rosell, R. Blasco & A. Gopher, 2017. Fire Bocherens, H., 2009. Neanderthal dietary habits: review of for a reason: barbecue at middle Pleistocene the isotopic evidence, in Evolution of Hominin Diets, Qesem cave, Israel. Current Anthropology 58(S16), eds J.J. Hublin & M.P. Richards. Heidelberg: S314–S328. Springer, 241–50. Barnard, A., 2002. The foraging mode of thought. Senri Bocherens, H., 2011. Diet and ecology of Neanderthals: Ethnological Studies 60, 5–24. implications from C and N isotopes, in Neanderthal Ben-Dor, M. & R. Barkai, 2020. The importance of large Lifeways: Subsistence and technology, eds N.J. Conard prey animals during the Pleistocene and the implica- & J. Richter. Tübingen: Springer, 73–85. tions of their extinction on the use of dietary ethno- Bocherens, H., in press. Isotopic insights on the ecological graphic analogies. Journal of Anthropological interactions between humans and woolly mammoths Archaeology 59, 101192. during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Europe, Ben-Dor, M. & R. Barkai, in press. Supersize does matter: in Human–Elephant Interactions: From past to present, the importance of large prey in Paleolithic subsistence eds G. Konidaris, R. Barkai, V. Tourloukis & and a method for measurement of its signiﬁcance, in K. Harvati. Tübingen: Tübingen University Press. zooarchaeological assemblages, in Human–Elephant Boschian, G., D. Caramella, D. Saccà & R. Barkai, 2019. Are Interactions: From past to present, eds G. Konidaris, there marrow cavities in Pleistocene elephant limb R. Barkai, V. Tourloukis & K. Harvati. Tübingen: bones, and was marrow available to early humans? Tübingen University Press. New CT scan results from the site of Castel di Ben-Dor, M., A. Gopher, I. Hershkovitz & R. Barkai, 2011. Guido (Italy). Quaternary Science Reviews 215, 86–97. Man the fat hunter: the demise of Homo erectus and Boyd, B., 2017. Archaeology and human-animal relations: the emergence of a new hominin lineage in the thinking through anthropocentrism. Annual Review Middle Pleistocene (ca. 400 kyr) Levant. PLoS One 6 of Anthropology 46, 299–316. (12): e28689. Braun, I.M. & M.R. Palombo, 2012. Mammuthus primigenius Ben-Dor, M., A. Gopher & R. Barkai, 2016. Neandertals’ in the cave and portable art: an overview with a short large lower thorax may represent adaptation to account on the elephant fossil record in Southern high protein diet. American Journal of Physical Europe during the last glacial. Quaternary Anthropology 160(3), 367–78. International 276, 61–76. Betts, M.W., S.E. Blair & D.W. Black, 2012. Perspectivism, Brown, D.E., 1991. Human Universals. New York (NY): mortuary symbolism, and human-shark relation- McGraw Hill. ships on the Maritime Peninsula. American Brown, D. E., 2004. Human universals, human nature & Antiquity 77(4), 621–45. human culture. Daedalus 133(4), 47–54. Betts, M.W., M. Hardenberg & I. Stirling, 2015. How ani- Bunn, H.T., 2006. Meat made us human, in Evolution of the mals create human history: relational ecology and Human Diet: The known, the unknown, and the unknow- the Dorset–polar bear connection. American able, ed. P. Ungar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Antiquity 80(1), 89–112. 191–211. Biesele, M., 1993. Women Like Meat: The folklore and foraging Bunn, H.T., 2019. Large ungulate mortality proﬁles and ideology of the Kalahari Ju/’Hoan. Johannesburg: ambush hunting by Acheulean-age hominins at Witwatersrand University Press. Elandsfontein, Western Cape Province, South Bird-David, N. & D. Naveh, 2008. Relational epistemology, Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 107, 40–49. immediacy, and conservation: or, what do the Burnham, D.K., 1992. To Please the Caribou: Painted caribou- Nayaka try to conserve? Journal for the Study of skin coats worn by the Naskapi, Montagnais, and Cree Religion, Nature and Culture 2(1), 55–73. hunters of the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula. Seattle (WA): Birouste, C., 2020. Human and animal individuals in the University of Washington Press. Middle Magdalenian. Journal of Archaeological Churchill, S.E., 1993. Weapon technology, prey size selec- Method and Theory 27, 607–30. tion, and hunting methods in modern hunter- Blasco, R., J. Rosell, M. Arilla, A. Margalida, D. Villalba, gatherers: implications for hunting in the A. Gopher & R. Barkai, 2019b. Bone marrow storage Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Archeological Papers of and delayed consumption at Middle Pleistocene the American Anthropological Association 4(1), 11–24. Qesem Cave, Israel (420 to 200 ka). Science Advances Clottes, J., 2009. Sticking bones into cracks in the Upper 5(10), eaav9822. Palaeolithic, in Becoming Human: Innovation in prehis- Blasco, R., J. Rosell, F. Cuartero, J.F. Peris, A. Gopher & toric material and spiritual culture,edsC.Renfrew& R. Barkai, 2013. Using bones to shape stones: MIS 9 I. Morley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, bone retouchers at both edges of the Mediterranean 195–211. Sea. PLoS One 8(10), e76780. Conneller, C., 2004. Becoming deer. Corporeal transfor- Blasco, R., J. Rosell, A. Sánchez-Marco, A. Gopher & mations at Star Carr. Archaeological Dialogues 11(1), R. Barkai, 2019a. Feathers and food: human-bird 37–56. interactions at Middle Pleistocene Qesem Cave, Costa, A.G., 2010. A geometric morphometric assessment Israel. Journal of Human Evolution 136, 102653. of plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean bifaces

358

from the Middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, of essential fatty acids suitable for Palaeolithic and Latium, Italy, in New Perspectives on Old Stones, eds Neolithic humans. PLoS One 9(1), e84480. S.J. Lycett & P.R. Chauhan. New York (NY): Guil-Guerrero J.L., A. Tikhonov, R.P. Ramos-Bueno, Springer, 23–41. S. Grigoriev, A. Protopopov, G. Savvinov & Domínguez-Rodrigo, M. & T.R. Pickering, 2017. The meat M.J. González-Fernández, 2018. Mammoth resources of the matter: an evolutionary perspective on for hominins: from omega-3 fatty acids to cultural human carnivory. Azania: Archaeological Research in objects. Journal of Quaternary Science 33(4), 455–63. Africa 52(1), 4–32. Hallowell, A.I., 1960. Ojibwa ontology behavior, and world Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., J. Serrallonga, J. Juan-Tresserras, view, in Culture in History: Essays in honor of Paul L. Alcala & L. Luque, 2001. Woodworking activities Radin, ed. S. Diamond. New York (NY): Columbia by early humans: a plant residue analysis on University Press, 19–52. Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Hardy, K., J. Brand-Miller, K.D. Brown, M.G. Thomas & Journal of Human Evolution 40, 289–99. L. Copeland, 2015. The importance of dietary carbo- Dyble, M., J. Thompson, D. Smith, et al., 2016. Networks of hydrate in human evolution. Quarterly Review of food sharing reveal the functional significance of Biology 90(3), 251–68. multilevel sociality in two hunter-gatherer groups. Hardy, B.L., M.H. Moncel, J. Despriée, G. Courcimault & Current Biology 26(15), 2017–21. P. Voinchet, 2018. Middle Pleistocene hominin Faith, J.T., J. Rowan, A. Du & P.L. Koch, 2018. behavior at the 700ka Acheulean site of la Noira Plio-Pleistocene decline of African megaherbivores: (France). Quaternary Science Reviews 199, 60–82. no evidence for ancient hominin impacts. Science Henrich, J., S.J., Heine & A. Norenzayan, 2010. The weird- 362(6417), 938–41. est people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences Finkel, M. & R. Barkai, 2018. The Acheulean handaxe 33(2–3), 61–83. technological persistence – lack of innovation or a Hill, E., 2011. Animals as agents: hunting ritual and rela- case of preferred conservatism? Proceedings of the tional ontologies in prehistoric Alaska and Prehistoric Society 84, 1–19. Chukotka. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21(3), Fisher, J.L., 2020. Diversity of forager lifeways in the pre- 407–26. historic past. Antiquity 94, 533–35. Hill, E., 2013. Archaeology and animal persons: toward a Friedman, M., 1996. Nutritional value of proteins from dif- prehistory of human-animal relations. Environment ferent food sources. A review. Journal of Agricultural and Society: Advances in Research 4, 117–36. Food Chemistry 44, 6–29. Hitchcock, R.K., 2019. Hunters and gatherers past and pre- Gallotti, R. & C. Peretto, 2015. The Lower/early Middle sent: perspectives on diversity, teaching, and infor- Pleistocene small débitage productions in western mation transmission. Reviews in Anthropology 48(1), Europe: new data from Isernia La Pineta t. 3c 5–37. (Upper Volturno Basin, Italy). Quaternary Hussain, S.T. & H. Floss, 2015. Sharing the world with International 357, 264–81. mammoths, cave lions and other beings: linking Garate, D., A. Labarge, O. Rivero, I. Intxaurbe, C. animal-human interactions and the Aurignacian Barshay-Szmidt & C. Normand, 2019. Another ‘belief world’. Quartär 62, 85–120. bone in the wall: towards a characterisation of the Jones, P.R., 1980. Experimental butchery with modern objects placed in wall fissures at Isturitz cave stone tools and its relevance for Palaeolithic archae- (Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France). Archaeological and ology. World Archaeology 12, 153–65. Anthropological Sciences 11(12), 6875–87. Jones, P.R., 1981. Experimental implement manufacture Gaudzinski, S., E. Turner, A.P. Anzidei, et al., 2005. The use and use; a case study from Olduvai Gorge, of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic Tanzania. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal life. Quaternary International 126, 179–94. Society of London B: Biological Sciences 292(1057), Givens, D.I., K.E. Kliem & R.A. Gibbs, 2006. The role of 189–95. meat as a source of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids Jones, A.M., 2017. Rock art and ontology. Annual Review of in the human diet. Meat Science 74(1), 209–18. Anthropology 46, 167–81. Goren-Inbar, N., N., Alperson-Afil, G. Sharon & Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool G. Herzlinger, 2018. The Acheulian Site of Gesher Uses: A microwear analysis. Chicago (IL): University of Benot Ya‘aqov Volume IV: The Lithic Assemblages. Chicago Press. Heidelberg: Springer. Key, A.J.M. & S.J. Lycett, 2015. Edge angle as a variably Guenther, M., 2015. ‘Therefore their parts resemble influential factor in flake cutting efficiency: an experi- humans, for they feel that they are people’. mental investigation of its relationship with tool size Ontological flux in San myth, cosmology and belief. and loading. Archaeometry 57, 911–27. Hunter Gatherer Research 1(3), 277–315. Key, A.J.M. & S.J. Lycett, 2017. Influence of handaxe size Guil-Guerrero J.L., A. Tikhonov, I. Rodríguez-García, and shape on cutting efficiency: a large-scale experi- A. Protopopov, S. Grigoriev & R.P. Ramos-Bueno, ment and morphometric analysis. Journal of 2014. The fat from frozen mammals reveals sources Archaeological Method and Theory 24(2), 514–41.

359

Kimmerer, R.W., 2018. Mishkos Kenomagwen, the lessons Pobiner, B.L., M.J. Rogers, C.M. Monahan & J.W. Harris, of grass: restoring reciprocity with the good green 2008. New evidence for hominin carcass processing earth, in Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Learning strategies at 1.5 Ma, Koobi Fora, Kenya. Journal of from indigenous practices for environmental sustainabil- Human Evolution 55(1), 103–30. ity, eds M. Nelson & D. Shilling. Cambridge: Pope, M. & M. Roberts, 2005. Observations on the relation- Cambridge University Press, 27–56. ship between Palaeolithic individuals and artefact Kohn, E., 2015. Anthropology of ontologies. Annual Review scatters at the Middle Pleistocene site of Boxgrove, of Anthropology 44, 311–32. UK, in The Individual Hominid in Context: Lavi, N. & D.E. Friesem (eds), 2019. Towards a Broader View Archaeological investigations of Lower and Middle of Hunter Gatherer Sharing. Cambridge: McDonald Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts, eds Institute for Archaeological Research. C. Gamble & M. Porr. London: Routledge, 81–97. Lee, R.B., 2006. Commonalities and diversities in contem- Potts, R., A.K, Behrensmeyer, J.T. Faith, et al., 2018. porary hunter-gatherers: from settlement archae- Environmental dynamics during the onset of the ology to development ethnography. Archeological Middle Stone Age in eastern Africa. Science 360 Papers of the American Anthropological Association 16 (6384), 86–90. (1), 157–69. Reshef, H. & R. Barkai, 2015. A taste of an elephant: the Lev, M. & R. Barkai, 2016. Elephants are people, people are probable role of elephant meat in Paleolithic diet pre- elephants: elephant food taboos as a case for cross- ferences. Quaternary International 379, 28–34. cultural animal humanization in recent and Russell, T., 2017. ‘People will no longer be people but will Paleolithic times. Quaternary International 406(2), have markings and be animals’: investigating con- 239–45. nections between diet, myth, ritual and rock art in Lewis, J.D., 2015. Where goods are free but knowledge southern African archaeology. Azania: Archaeological costs: hunter-gatherer ritual economics in Western Research in Africa 52(2), 192–208. Central Africa. Hunter-Gatherer Research 1(1), 1–27. Sano, K., Y. Beyene, S. Katoh, et al., 2020. A 1.4-million-year-old Lewis-Williams, J.D. & M. Biesele, 1978. Eland hunting bone handaxe from Konso, Ethiopia, shows advanced rituals among northern and southern San groups: tool technology in the early Acheulean. Proceedings of striking similarities. Africa 48(2), 117–34. the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 117, Loring, S., 1996. To please the animal master: the Innu 18393–400. hunting way of life. Tribal College 7(4), 20–23. Smith F.A., R.E.E. Smith, S.K. Lyons & J.L. Payne, 2018. Lucero, L.J., 2018. A cosmology of conservation in the Body size downgrading of mammals over the late ancient Maya world. Journal of Anthropological Quaternary. Science 360(6386), 310–13. Research 74(3), 327–59. Solodenko, N., A. Zupancich, S.N. Cesaro, O. Marder, Lycett, S.J. & J.A.J. Gowlett, 2008. On questions surround- C. Lemorini & R. Barkai, 2015. Fat residue and use- ing the Acheulean ‘tradition’. World Archaeology wear found on Acheulian biface and scraper asso- 403, 295–315. ciated with butchered elephant remains at the site Machin, A., J. Robert, T. Hosfield & S. Mithen, 2007. Why of Revadim, Israel. PloS One 10(3), e0118572. are some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the influ- Speth, J.D., 2020. Paleoindian bison hunting on the North ence of handaxe morphology on butchery effective- American Great Plains – two critical nutritional con- ness. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(6), 883–93. straints. PaleoAnthropology 74, 97. McNiven, I.J. & R. Feldman, 2003. Ritually orchestrated Tanner, A., 2014. Bringing Home Animals: Mistissini hunters seascapes: hunting magic and dugong bone mounds of Northern Quebec. St Johns: ISER Books. in Torres Strait, NE Australia. Cambridge Van Kolfschoten, T., E. Buhrs & I. Verheijen, 2015. The larger Archaeological Journal 13(2), 169–94. mammal fauna from the Lower Paleolithic Mitchell, J.C., 1996. Studying biface utilisation at Boxgrove: Schöningen Spear site and its contribution to hominin roe deer butchery with replica handaxes. Lithics 16, subsistence. Journal of Human Evolution 89, 138–53. 64–9. Venditti, F., E. Cristiani, S. Nunziante-Cesaro, A. Agam, Morin, E., 2020. Rethinking the emergence of bone grease C. Lemorini & R. Barkai, 2019a. Animal residues procurement. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology found on tiny Lower Paleolithic tools reveal their 59, 101178. use in butchery. Scientific Reports 9(1), 1–14. Nadasdy, P., 2007. The gift in the animal: the ontology of Venditti, F., S.N., Cesaro, Y. Parush, A. Gopher & R. Barkai, hunting and human–animal sociality. American 2019b. Recycling for a purpose in the late Lower Ethnologist 34(1), 25–43. Paleolithic Levant: use-wear and residue analyses Outram, A., 2002. Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: of small sharp flint items indicate a planned and inte- an experimentally based method for investigating grated subsistence behavior at Qesem Cave (Israel). levels of marrow extraction, in Consuming Passions Journal of Human Evolution 131, 109–28. and Patterns of Consumption, eds P. Miracle & Viveiros de Castro, E., 1998. Cosmological deixis and N. Milner. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Amerindian perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Archeological Research, 51–63. Anthropological Institute 4(3), 469–88.

360

Werdelin, L. & M.E. Lewis, 2013. Temporal change in func- contexts at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Revadim, tional richness and evenness in the eastern African Israel. Lithic Technology 43, 255–68. Plio-Pleistocene carnivoran guild. PLoS One 8(3), Zutovski, K. & R. Barkai, 2016. The use of elephant bones e57944. for making Acheulian handaxes: a fresh look at old Willerslev, R., 2013. Taking animism seriously, but bones. Quaternary International 406, 227–38. perhaps not too seriously? Religion and Society 4(1), 41–57. Zink, K.D. & D.E. Lieberman, 2016. Impact of meat and Author biography Lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans. Nature 531, 500–503. Ran Barkai (PhD, 2000, Tel-Aviv University) is Professor Živaljevic,́ I., 2015. Concepts of the body and personhood of Prehistoric Archaeology and former chair of the in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Danube gorges: interpret- Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern ing animal remains from human burials. Issues in Cultures, Tel Aviv University. Together with Professor Ethnology and Anthropology 10, 675–99. Avi Gopher, he co-directs excavations at the Middle Zupancich, A., N. Solodenko, T. Rosenberg-Yefet & Pleistocene site of Qesem Cave. He has published exten- R. Barkai, 2018. On the function of Late Acheulean sively on different aspects of Palaeolithic and Neolithic stone tools: new data from three speciﬁcarchaeological technology, subsistence, cosmology and lifeways.

361