their use resembles “soft hammer” techniques (Pelegrin 2000); this technique is indeed observed at GBY, as demonstrated by the presence of its traits on basalt, and even more clearly on flint, flakes (Sharon and Goren-Inbar 1999; Goren-Inbar and Sharon 2006). An antler fragment with evident marks of its use as a percussor was discovered at GBY (Goren-Inbar 2011a). Both limestone percussors and the antler one were most probably instrumental in the final stages of biface modification. At present we lack experimental data comparing the application of different percussors (antler, limestone, basalt) and their byproducts. Until such data are available, our understanding of the particular selection modes and their reasoning cannot encompass detailed reconstruction of the full processes of decision-making regarding the use of the different percussors.

Cognitive Abilities

A previous study of the basalt reduction sequence at GBY demonstrated that the Acheuleans‘ cognitive abilities were developed and encompassed a variety of cognitive fields (Goren-Inbar 2011b and references therein; cognitive terminology after Coolidge and Wynn 2009). The acquisition of the basalt raw material and its repetition throughout the entire Acheulean sequence of the site are indicative both of large-scale spatial thinking and of long-term memory.

Exactly the same patterns characterize the acquisition of the limestone component. While we lack precise knowledge of the collecting spots of the basalt slabs and the limestone nodules, the geology of the region furnishes information on the accessibility of these rocks. Clearly, advanced planning was part of the reduction sequence of the limestone, but in contrast with the basalt, it is impossible to suggest cooperative provisioning for the former. The expression of contingency also differs between the two raw materials. While the basalt reduction sequence demonstrates a variety of modes for extracting large flakes (for the production of bifaces; see Goren-Inbar 2011b), contingency in limestone modification is expressed by the hominins’ ability to transform one type into another, a behavior that clearly illustrate the technical and procedural know-how (procedural cognition). The contribution that emerges from the analysis of the limestone component, and its comparison to the other results from GBY, is extremely instructive about cognitive abilities. The reduction sequences for basalt and limestone described here illustrate the multi-facetted abilities of the hominins. Moreover, both behaviors are documented along a time trajectory of 50 ka at the site. They have clear implications for the communication abilities that form a segment of the general social cognition of the Acheulean.

The Acheulean hominins of GBY repeatedly reoccupied the paleo-Lake Hula margin, where they habitually used fire

(Goren-Inbar et al. 2004; Alperson-Afil 2008; Alperson-Afil and Goren-Inbar 2010), systematically butchered animals (Rabinovich et al. 2008, 2012), exploited aquatic resources (Alperson-Afil et al. 2009), collected plant food and cracked nuts (Goren-Inbar et al. 2002a), and transported artifacts of different raw materials to and from the site (Sharon and Goren-Inbar 1999; Goren-Inbar and Sharon 2006; GorenInbar et al. 2011). These activities were carried out within a formalized, modern conceptualization of their living space (Alperson-Afil et al. 2009). Despite its scarcity, analyses of the limestone component have contributed significant information on the behavior of the GBY hominins. Their primary goal in obtaining limestone nodules was their use as percussors, so that other limestone artifacts can be considered byproducts. The fact that these byproducts are integrated within the limestone assemblages in a formal, consistent manner is evidence of contingency. In addition, the ability of the GBY hominins to transform one type into another while diverging from the original plan implies cultural complexity as well as flexibility. As with other aspects of the lithic assemblages of GBY, the limestone component exhibits consistent typological and technological homogeneity along the time trajectory for millennia. This conservatism of the transmission of knowledge about specific raw materials, their reduction sequences, and the flexible variations within them is typical of a “complex” culture.

Acknowledgements This study was carried out with the support of an ongoing grant awarded by the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 300/06) to the Center of Excellence Project Title: “The Effect of Climate Change on the Environment and Hominins of the Upper Jordan Valley between ca. 800 ka and 700 ka ago as a Basis for Prediction of Future Scenarios.” N. Alperson-Afil is grateful for the support of the Martin Buber Society of Fellows, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The authors wish to thank Gadi Herzlinger, Arik Malinsky-Buller, Gonen Sharon, Gaby Laron (photography), and Leonid Zeiger (artifact drawings). The authors are also grateful for the contributions of S. Gorodetsky who edited the manuscript with her usual professionalism.

References

Alperson-Afil, N. (2008). Continual fire-making by hominins at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Quaternary Science Reviews, 27, 1733–1739.

Alperson-Afil, N., & Goren-Inbar, N. (2010). The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov: Ancient flames and controlled use of fire

(Vol. II). Dordrecht: Springer.

Alperson, N., Sharon, G., Zohar, I., Biton, R., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M. E., et al. (2009). Spatial organization of hominins activities at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science, 326, 1677–1680.

Belitzky, S. (2002). The structure and morphotectonics of the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov area, northern dead sea rift, Israel. Quaternary Research, 58, 372–380.

Belitzky, S., Goren-Inbar, N., & Werker, E. (1991). A Middle Pleistocene wooden plank with man-made polish. Journal of Human Evolution, 20, 349–353.

Célérier, G., & Kervazo, B. (1988). Livret-guide pour la visite du gisement de Pont d'Ambon, Bourdeilles. In Le peuplement magdalénien, Centenaire de la découverte de l'Homme de Chnncelade, Actes du Colloque International, Chancelade, 10–14 October 1988.

Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2009). The Rise of Homo sapiens – The evolution of modern thinking. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

de Beaune, S. A. (2000). Pour une Archéologie du Geste. Paris: Editions CNRS.

de la Torre, I. (2011). The Early Stone Age lithic assemblages of Gadeb (Ethiopia) and the Developed Oldowan/early Acheulean in East Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 768–812.

Feibel, C. S. (2001). Archaeological sediments in lake margin environments. In J. K. Stein & W. R. Farrand (Eds.), Sediments in archaeological contexts (pp. 127–148). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Feibel, C. S. (2004). Quaternary lake margins of the Levant Rift Valley. In N. Goren-Inbar & J. D. Speth (Eds.), Human paleoecology in the Levantine corridor (pp. 21–36). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Goren-Inbar, N. (2011a). Behavioral and cultural origins of Neanderthals: A Levantine perspective. In S. Condemi & G.-C. Weniger (Eds.), 150 years of Neanderthal discoveries: Continuity and discontinuity (pp. 89–100). Dordrecht: Springer.

Goren-Inbar, N. (2011b). Culture and cognition in the Acheulian industry – A case study from Gesher Benot Ya'aqov. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1038–1049.

Goren-Inbar, N., & Sharon, G. (2006). Invisible handaxes and visible Acheulian biface technology at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. In N. Goren-Inbar & G. Sharon (Eds.), Axe age: Acheulian tool-making from quarry to discard (pp. 111–135). London: Equinox.

Goren-Inbar, N., Lister, A., Werker, E., & Chech, M. (1994). A butchered elephant skull and associated artifacts from the Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Paléorient, 20(1), 99–112.

Goren-Inbar, N., Feibel, C. S., Verosub, K. L., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M. E., & Tchernov, E., et al. (2000). Pleistocene milestones on the out-of-Africa corridor at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science, 289, 944–974.

Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Melamed, Y., & Kislev, M. (2002a). Nuts, nut cracking, and pitted stones at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A, 99, 2455–2460.

Goren-Inbar, N., Werker, E., & Feibel, C. S. (2002b). The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel: The wood assemblage (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Goren-Inbar, N., Alperson, N., Kislev, M. E., Simchoni, O., Melamed, Y., & Ben-Nun, A., et al. (2004). Evidence of hominin control of fire at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Science, 304, 725–727.

Goren-Inbar,N.,Grosman,L.,&Sharon,G.(2011).Therecord,technology and significance ofthe Acheulian giant cores of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel.JournalofArchaeologicalSciences,38,1901–1917.

Kleindienst, M. R. (1962). Components of the East African Acheulian assemblage: An analytic approach. In G. Mortelmans & J. Nenquin (Eds.), Actes du IVème Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire et de l’Etude du Quaternaire (pp. 81–111). Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale.

Krumbein, W. C. (1941). Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 11.

Lepre, C. J., Roche, H., Kent, D. V., Harmand, S., Quinn, R. L., & Brugal, J.-P., et al. (2011). An earlier origin for the Acheulian.

Nature, 477, 82–85.

Mora, R., & de la Torre, I. (2005). Percussion tools in Olduvai Beds I and II (Tanzania): Implications for early human activities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24, 179–192.

Pelegrin, J. (2000). Les techniques de débitage laminaire au Tardiglaciaire: Critères de diagnose et quelques réflexions. In B. Valentin, P. Bodu, & M. Christensen (Eds.), L’Europe Centrale et Septentrionale au Tardiglaciare (Vol. 7, pp. 73–86). Paris: Mémoire du Musée de Préhistoire de l’Ile-de-France.

Rabinovich, R., & Biton, R. (2011). The Early-Middle Pleistocene faunal assemblages of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov – Taphonomy and paleoenvironment. Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 357–374.

Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski, S., & Goren-Inbar, N. (2008). Systematic butchering of Fallow deer (Dama) at the Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, (Israel). Journal of Human Evolution, 54, 134–149.

Rabinovich, R., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Kindler, L., & Goren-Inbar, N. (2012). The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov: Mammalian taphonomy – The assemblages of layers V-5 and V-6 (Vol. III). Dordrecht: Springer.

Roe, D. A. (2001). The Kalambo Falls large cutting tools: A comparative metrical and statistical analysis. In J. D. Clark (Ed.),

Kalambo falls prehistoric site (pp. 429–599). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rufo, M. A., Minelli, A., & Peretto, C. (2009). The limestone industry of the Paleolithic site of Isernia La Pineta: An interpretative model of the behavioural strategies. L’Anthropologie, 113, 78–95.

Sharon, G. (2007). Acheulian large flake industries: Technology, chronology, and significance. BAR International Series 1701. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Sharon, G., & Goren-Inbar, N. (1999). Soft percussor use at the Gesher Benot Ya'aqov Acheulian site? Mitekufat Haeven, 28, 55–79.

Sharon, G., Alperson-Afil, N., & Goren-Inbar, N. (2011). Cultural conservatism against variability in the continual Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel. Jounal of Human Evolution, 60, 387–397.

Soressi, M., Rendu, W., Texier, J.-P., Émilie Claud, L. D., d’Errico, F., & Laroulandie, V., et al. (2011). Pech-de-l’Azé I (Dordogne, France): nouveau regard sur un gisement moustérien de tradition acheuléenne connu depuis le XIXe siècle. Mémoire XLVII de la Société Préhistorique Française, 95–132.

Spiro, B., Ashkenazi, S., Starinsky, A., & Katz, A. (2011). Strontium isotopes in Melanopsis sp. as indicators of variation in hydrology and climate in the Upper Jordan Valley during the Early-Middle Pleistocene, and wider implications. Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 407–416.

Zohar, I., & Biton, R. (2011). Land, lake, and fish: Investigation of fish remains from Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (paleo-lake Hula). Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 343–356.

Abstract As archaeologists, we cannot access culture or cognition directly; we can only interpret levels of cultural or cognitive complexity from circumstantial evidence or from technological evidence. Some technologies cannot be achieved without complex cognition. Interpreting technological, cognitive and cultural complexity requires carefully constructed bridging theory between archaeologicallyrecovered data and interpretations about behavior and human capacity. Some of the technologies that imply complex cognition also involve permanent transformations of their ingredients. Such technologies imply that the artisans were capable of conceptualizing cultural transformations. Iron Age material culture items clearly demonstrate the link between technological and cultural transformations. Metal furnaces are symbolically linked to human fertility and motifs on a number of artifacts are reminiscent of human rites of passage. I suggest here that material culture and motifs in the deeper past may similarly connect to cultural transformations, even though it is unlikely that the meaning of these can be decoded.

Keywords Technology Culture Behavior Symbolism Bridging theory Middle Stone Age Iron Age Rites of passage

Introduction

What is special about the culture of Homo sapiens? A simplistic answer is that modern humans are capable of using an entire suite of attributes that we interpret as cultural, for

L. Wadley (&)

Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, PO WITS 2050, South Africa

e-mail: Lyn.Wadley@wits.ac.za

example, altruism, symbolic thought and burial of the dead. This seems not to be the case for animals; they are more likely to display one or two attributes that overlap with those associated with human cultural behavior. It is not my intention here to make a distinction between human and animal culture, but rather to explore some aspects of culture that can be inferred for people who were physically like us from about 100 ka. The potential for complex culture is inextricably linked to the level of cognitive complexity attained by people. For this reason my study of cultural transformations is linked to interpretations of cognitive development as well as to the concept of technological transformations. Archaeologists can never access culture or cognition directly; we can only interpret the level of cultural or cognitive complexity indirectly from circumstantial evidence. This might make the interpretation of cultural behavior seem speculative. Yet, interpreting technology or subsistence is no different, even though archaeologists often feel more comfortable about doing this. We do not excavate technology or subsistence directly; we infer a level of technology from artifacts and their contexts, and we infer subsistence strategies from artifacts and identified organic remains. Interpreting technological, cognitive and cultural complexity requires carefully constructed bridging theory between archaeologically-recovered data and interpretations of human behavior. Before we attribute abilities or intention to early human subjects, we need to be sure that they possessed the requisite mental architecture and cognitive capacity. When examining technology and inferring cognitive capacity from this, we need to ask whether certain tasks are reliant on particular cognitive capacities and could not be achieved without them.

I mention a few of the previously published viewpoints about cultural attributes that are supposed to overlap with those of people today, then I move to examine material culture and its behavioral correlates from a different perspective. The first of the published arguments, put forward by Davidson and Noble (1992) and others, is that the colonization of Australia implies exceptional planning and

risk-taking of the kind associated with people like ourselves. This seems compelling evidence that, after about 60 ka, people had cognition similar to that of our own.

Perhaps one of the most advertised of the attributes thought to signal behavior like that of our own is symbolism. Many artifacts are considered to be symbolic; amongst the most convincing are those which may have functioned as personal ornaments, either stitched to clothing or strung and worn directly on the body. Perforated marine or estuarine shells, with wear patterns suggesting that they were strung, occur at widely spaced sites from the Near East to southern Africa. Those from the Near East are 100 ka (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2009), while North African perforated shells are older than 80 ka (Bouzouggar et al. 2007), and the South African examples from Blombos (Fig. 6.1b) and Sibudu are ca. 72 ka (Henshilwood et al. 2004; d’Errico et al. 2005, 2008). The perforated shells from Blombos and Sibudu are from different genera, but they look similar. Some

Neanderthal sites in Europe have also yielded putative beads. If, as many archaeologists believe, beads imply that their makers were expressing group or individual identity, then Neanderthals as well as modern humans practised symbolic behavior. The engraved ochre from Blombos (Fig. 6.1c) is frequently cited as further evidence for early symbolic material culture. The most celebrated of the pieces, with a crosshatched design between boundary lines, is between 78 and 72 ka, from the Still Bay Industry, but older pieces have ages of about 100 ka (Henshilwood et al. 2009). Klein Kliphuis, in the Western Cape, South Africa, also has a piece of engraved ochre; this one is from the Howiesons Poort Industry and is probably about 60 ka (Mackay and Welz 2008). The extraordinarily large collection of 270 engraved ostrich eggshell fragments from the Howiesons Poort Industry of Diepkloof Rock Shelter in the Western Cape (Fig. 6.1a) is certainly older than 60 ka (Texier et al. 2010). The ladderlike motifs on the majority of them seem