SPECIAL SECTION When Materials Speak about Ontology: A Hunter-Gatherer Perspective Beyond Tools and Function: The Selection of Materials and the Ontology of Hunter-Gatherers. Ethnographic Evidences and Implications for Palaeolithic Archaeology Ella Assaf & Francesca Romagnoli In this paper we discuss the universal selection of exceptional materials for tool making in prehistory. The interpretation suggested in the literature for these non-standard materials is usually limited to a general statement, considering possible aesthetic values or a general, mostly unexplained, symbolic meaning. We discuss the implications of viewing these materials as active agents and living vital beings in Palaeolithic archaeology as attested in indigenous hunter-gatherer communities all around the world. We suggest that the use of specific materials in the Palaeolithic was meaningful, and beyond its possible ‘symbolic’ meaning, it reflects deep familiarity and complex relations of early humans with the world surrounding them—humans and other-than- human persons (animals, plants, water and stones)—on which they were dependent. We discuss the perception of tools and the materials from which they are made as reflecting relationships, respectful behaviour and functionality from an ontological point of view. In this spirit, we suggest re-viewing materials as reflecting social, cosmological and ontological world-views of Palaeolithic humans, and looking beyond their economic, functional aspects, as did, perhaps, our ancestors themselves. Introduction anthropocentric, western and colonial one (Harris & Cipolla 2017). In contemporary indigenous societies, The earliest production and use of stone tools more rather than being a dividing element between than three million years ago was, no doubt, a turning humans and other elements of the world, tools are point in the history of humankind, considered by perceived as a bridge, connecting all of them. In some scholars to be one of the defining characteristics this light, various elements related to the making of the genus Homo, setting humans apart (e.g. process of these tools—including the selection of Man the Toolmaker, Oakley 1944; Holloway 1969; materials from which they are made—reflect the rela- Premack 2010, although this approach is less accept- tions between these elements. Can we speculate that able nowadays). One might consider this dichotom- similar perceptions were shared by humans in the ous human–animal perspective on tools as an distant past? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 31:2, 281–291 © 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/S0959774320000359. IP address:Received 170.106.40.40 7 Aug 2019;, on Accepted01 Oct 2021 25 at Aug14:35:33 2020;, subject Revised to the 10 Cambridge Jul 2020 Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000359 Ella Assaf & Francesca Romagnoli This introductory paper is part of a special values or a general, mostly unexplained, symbolic section addressing the universal phenomenon of meaning. human selection of exceptional materials for tool Notwithstanding any of these explanations, making and its possible socio-cultural, cosmological there might have been other factors which influenced implications. The first part of this article will briefly choices of materials, and exceptional materials par- describe the main theme of this section and this ticularly, relating to the socio-cultural world of paper, its theoretical framework and the implications early humans and their ontological-cosmological for prehistoric archaeology. The second part will worldviews. But is it possible for us to comprehend, explore one line of thinking suggested for interpret- in general, this role of ‘material culture’ in the socio- ing this phenomenon: the relational-ontology cultural realms and in the ontology of ancient approach. Here, we will discuss the possible applica- humans? The relationship between humans and tion of this view to Lower Palaeolithic findings, and materiality has recently attracted much theoretical with regard to material selection for handaxe making interest in archaeology and various other disciplines in particular, as a test case. Finally, we will briefly (e.g. Bell & Spikins 2018; Herva 2009; Ingold 2000; present the case studies included in this thematic sec- Knappett 2002), but these issues remain under- tion and conclude with some thoughts that could explored in prehistoric archaeology. The contribu- guide further attempts to enlarge our understanding tions of this section, as well as this paper, attempt of archaeological hunter-gatherer societies, including to address some of these issues. the way in which they built their cosmological word Looking at the overview of ethnographic and and interacted with it. anthropological hunter-gatherer case studies pre- sented, and keeping in mind the archaeological evi- Human selection of exceptional materials: dence suggesting that past humans most probably considering socio-cultural, cosmological aspects had social and cognitive behaviours more complex than was thought a few years ago (here we only dis- For more than three million years, humans have been cuss a small number of these cases, but the recent sci- selecting, collecting and transporting various materi- entific Palaeolithic literature is increasingly als, mostly stones and minerals but also animal abundant), we cannot exclude that a different per- bones and shells, for the production of tools. This ception of artefacts was most probably present in seemingly basic activity is far from being trivial, the Palaeolithic period. Possibly, material cultural and it raises questions concerning the mode of adap- was produced not only for meeting functional tation, cost-benefit considerations and choices made needs, but it was a way to reflect and form relation- by early humans (Beck et al. 2002; Brantingham ships between a group and another group, a human 2003; Dibble 1991; Wilson 2007). Many studies and another human or other-than-human person and emphasize techno-economic considerations, such as between a human and the landscape. How can we the quality, size, availability and abundance of knap- enlarge our understanding of prehistory through ping materials as well as location of outcrops on the the notion that cultural material constituted a signifi- displacement to foraging, as leading reasons for cant part of the ontology and cosmology of early selection, transportation and use of knapping materi- human communities? als (Braun et al. 2009; Browne & Wilson 2011; Shick In this paper, we explore one line of thinking 1987; Stout et al. 2005). The situation is somewhat dif- suggested for interpreting this phenomenon: the ferent as regards ‘exceptional’ materials, that is, relational-ontology approach. We discuss the impli- unusual, non-standard materials identified in specific cations of viewing exceptional materials selected for archaeological contexts, such as stones with notice- tool making as active agents and living vital beings able aesthetic values, animal bones and shells, as in Palaeolithic archaeology as attested in indigenous well as materials originating from remote sources. hunter-gatherer communities worldwide. The capacity to differentiate these from the huge amount of other materials makes them more easily The relational-ontology view and the identifiable in the archaeological record (even if it is archaeological record possible that more common materials also have had meanings other than functional, as briefly noted in Ethnographic and archaeological literature suggests this paper). These exceptional materials, for the that present and past hunter-gatherers are constantly most part, are not overlooked, although the interpret- engaged in establishing and maintaining social rela- ation suggested for their presence is usually limited tions between human group members and other- to a general statement, considering possible aesthetic than-human persons (Betts et al. 2015; Bird-David 282 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.40, on 01 Oct 2021 at 14:35:33, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774320000359 Beyond Tools and Function 1999; Hill 2011; Naveh & Bird-David 2014; Viveiros other-than-human persons. Engaging and forming de Castro 1998), designated to ensure that current reciprocal relations such as these is considered to ways of life will be sustained (Barkai 2019; Tanner be vital, and it is practised in everyday life by all per- 1979). Beyond the functional aspect, producing and sons of the group (Harrison-Buck & Hendon 2018). using tools is one way to maintain relations between Hill (2011) suggests that prehistoric hunters in the the different elements of the world, as they reflect Arctic treated animals as agential persons, involved perceptions transmitted over generations regarding in social practices intended to facilitate hunting suc- the relations of humans with other-than-human per- cess and avoid offending prey. Their thoughts and sons. Tools are also active agents, means