(Stiner and Kuhn 1992). Examination of the technology suggests that different local solutions were found to foraging options within what generally would be classified as Mousterian industries (Kuhn 2006). Although often the same prey were killed, often at prime age, in Middle and in Upper Paleolithic contexts, the methods by which they were taken seem likely to have differed, with greater reliance on technology to increase reliable resource production in the Upper Paleolithic, probably increasing rates of child survivorship and hence population density (Stiner 2006).

In brief, the Late Pleistocene record allows analysis of the archaeological evidence freed from the worst problems of taphonomy and dating. As a result, the resolution of the record allows faunal remains and technology to be interpreted in terms of the plausible foraging strategies and consequences of hominins at different times and allows comparisons between hominins. The patterning is not well represented by the coarse taxonomic units derived from the nineteenth century classifications. In each region populations adapted to local circumstances and did not necessarily reach solutions that look the same within a simplistic analytical framework: they had what Kuhn called rugged fitness landscapes with many local and regional fitness peaks (Kuhn 2006). It may be that such fine-grained analysis is not possible for the earlier record, but these case studies show that, in addition to the other problems of interpretation outlined here, the analysis of stone artifact typology through time at one site, or by assigning assemblages to one or other class which is then interpreted in terms of the behavior of “cultures” defined by the existence of those classes, can miss the whole point that the tools were made for use and were part of the behavioral repertoire of hominins or people.

Binford, following White (1959:8), always claimed that culture was an extrasomatic means of adaptation (Binford 1962), but he did not mean that once the regularities in the archaeological remains have been given a name that is mistakenly called a “culture,” the adaptation can be understood. Rather, the adaptation can be seen in the way in which patterning in the artifacts was reproduced from time to time and place to place, and used in consistent ways at one time and different ways at another time, all of which influenced the success of particular foraging strategies and impacted on the demographic success of the population. The culture is found in the way in which artifacts were used, not only in their form. The technology of stone tools was in the knowledge associated with (a) procurement of tool stone,

(b) flaking the stone, (c) using the tool to make another tool, perhaps of wood or bone or skin, (d) using both in the acquisition of resources, (e) the knowledge of the resources that were made accessible through of the use of those tools, and (f) in preparing and consuming the resources once acquired, not just in the form of the product. It was technology that was socially learned, not just the form of the

tool. And the cultural knowledge involved both the technology so-defined as well as the social configurations of the hominins or people who used it.

Conclusion

Primatologists and archaeologists share the problem that their subjects cannot speak to them about what they are doing. By adopting some of the methodology by which primatologists have determined whether social learning occurs among them, it has been possible to show up some of the deficiencies in the existing arguments about the “cultural” nature of early stone industries. Most importantly, it is not clear that archaeologists necessarily even understand what it was that was learned when knapping skills were passed from one generation to another. I tentatively suggest that for the Oldowan it may have been no more than the ability to remove a succession of flakes from a platform: the knappers “had the cognitive abilities to exploit angles when encountered but not to create new ones” (Delagnes and Roche 2005). For the Acheulean it may have been about the maximisation through core rotations of the number of flakes struck from the acute platform created symmetrically at the margins of a large flake. The Levallois technique enabled the repeated production of large numbers of flakes from asymmetric cores by the discovery that as core angles tended towards obtuseness those angles could be renewed by the removal of a large flake. The Mousterian represented the recognition that the use-life of flakes could be prolonged by repeated retouching and reshaping.

Using the criteria about the consistency of behavior within a group, the variation between groups and the persistence of a tradition through time, it is possible to highlight the weaknesses of arguments about the cultural nature of knapping behavior and set up a number of research questions that need to be investigated. For each major grouping, is it possible to determine the extent of consistency, variation and persistence of tradition in this way? What is the incidence of knapping errors at particular times and places in relation to different raw material availability that might indicate what was being learned and how?

Several studies suggest that, in addition, the way ahead requires an assessment of the organisation of behavior in relation to stone tool production and use, especially in the context of other behavior, such as food acquisition. The outcomes may well not produce simple unilinear progress towards modernity or the Upper Paleolithic, and, indeed, may produce different adaptive solutions which made such progress unlikely. Such subtleties will produce a way of looking at adaptation very different from the view derived from nineteenth century archaeology. At its best, such an

approach may permit archaeologists to look at the impact of technology (tools as well as their role in society) on population size, and planning depth. One of the ways in which technology had such impacts was through the ability of hominins to expand either by finding a niche that was common to several habitats, or by finding new niches within a single habitat, or ultimately finding new niches that enabled them to move into new habitats.

The question of what labels should be given to such sorts of culture is complicated by the argument in this paper that much of the standard description of variation, in terms of artifact types, is not recognizing the appropriate variations. In Tomasello’s (1999:5) words, cumulative culture, the distinctive property of modern humans that is absent in apes, requires not only creative invention but also, and just as importantly, faithful social transmission that can work as a ratchet to prevent slippage backward – so that the newly invented artifact or practice preserves its new and improved form at least somewhat faithfully until a further modification or improvement comes along.

If it is true that conventional accounts of stone artifact variation do not capture what are the creative inventions, it is difficult to see how archaeology can study whether cumulative culture was present or not. The simplified set of changes outlined in this paper may offer some chance of asking the right questions. One other possibility is represented by the possibility of modular learning. I indicated, above, the suggestion that “chunking” of sequences of removals permitted “expert learning” of the Levallois technique (Wynn and Coolidge 2010). There is an extent to which this conclusion is dependent on the belief in the standard interpretation of the Levallois technique, which seems implausible. I have previously suggested that a better candidate for such modular learning is the use of crested blades as a preparation for the production of blade cores in the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa and the European Upper Paleolithic (Davidson 2010b:197–198). In those cases, the cognitive significance came from the capacity to engage in a physical activity that appears unrelated to the final purpose of it (see discussion, also, in Haidle 2011:460–461). This suggestion could also lead to future research to establish whether there were similar modular knapping sequences in other industries.

In conclusion, the standard way of looking at stone artifacts has not yielded insights that are helpful in a study of social learning in hominin evolution but there are ways of looking at knapping that probably allow a way forward.

Acknowledgments I thank Miriam Haidle and Nick Conard for the invitation to the conference and all the conference participants for their friendly discussion and disagreements. Among those from whom I have received important guidance on issues related to this paper are Phil Barnard, Miriam Belmaker, Rob Gargett, Barbara King, Bill McGrew, Mark Moore, Kimberley Newman, April Nowell, and Pat Shipman. Kimberley Newman prepared the final version of the figures. I thank them all.

References

Arnold, M. (1869). Culture and anarchy: An essay in social and political criticism. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://www. gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1724531&pageno=1 Baena, J., Lordkipanidze, D., Cuartero, F., Ferring, R., Zhvania, D., Martín, D., et al. (2010). Technical and technological complexity in the beginning: The study of Dmanisi lithic assemblage. Quaternary

International, 223–224, 45–53.

Bar-Yosef, O., & Van Peer, P. (2009). The Chaîne Opératoire approach in Middle Paleolithic archaeology. Current Anthropology, 50, 103–131.

Barnard, P. J. (2010). Current developments in inferring cognitive capabilities from the archaeological traces left by stone tools: Caught between a rock and a hard inference. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition

(pp. 207–226). Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. Barnard, P. J., Duke, D. J., Byrne, R. W., & Davidson, I. (2007).

Differentiation in cognitive and emotional meanings: An evolutionary analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1155–1183.

Bennett, T. (2005). Culture. In T. Bennett, L. Grossberg, & M. Morris (Eds.), New keywords. A revised vocabulary of culture and society

(pp. 63–69). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Beyries, S. (1987). Variabilité de l’industrie lithique au Moustérien. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 328.

Binford, L. R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity, 28, 217–225.

Binford, L. R. (1972). Contemporary model building: Paradigms and the current state of Palaeolithic research. In D. L. Clarke (Ed.), Models in Archaeology (pp. 109–166). London: Methuen.

Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity, 45, 4–20.

Binford, L. R., & Binford, S. R. (1966). A preliminary analysis of functional variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies.

American Anthropologist, 68, 238–295.

Binford, L. R., & O’Connell, J. F. (1984). An Alyawara day: The stone quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research, 40, 406–432.

Boëda, E. (1988). Le concept Levallois et evaluation de son champ d’application. In M. Otte (Ed.), L’Homme de Néandertal, Vol. 4: La Technique (pp. 13–26). ERAUL 31, Liège: Univertsité de Liège.

Boesch, C. (1991). Teaching among wild chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 41, 530–532.

Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1984a). Mental map in wild chimpanzees: An analysis of hammer transports for nut cracking. Primates, 25, 160–170.

Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1984b). Possible causes of sex differences in the use of natural hammers by wild chimpanzees. Journal of Human Evolution, 13, 415–440.

Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1993). Aspects of transmission of tool-use in wild chimpanzees. In K. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (pp. 171–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boesch, C., Marchesi, P., Marchesi, N., Fruth, B., & Joulian, F. (1994). Is nut cracking in wild chimpanzees a cultural behaviour? Journal of Human Evolution, 26, 325–338.

Bonner, J. (1980). The evolution of culture in animals. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bordes, F. (1961). Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen. Bordeaux: Delmas.

Bordes, F., & de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1970). The significance of varibility in Palaeolithic assemblages. World Archaeology, 2, 61–73.

Bowler, J. M., Jones, R., Allen, H., & Thorne, A. G. (1970). Pleistocene human remains from Australia: A living site and human

cremation from Lake Mungo, Western New South Wales. World Archaeology, 2, 39–60.

Box, H. O. & Gibson, K. R. (1999). Preface. In H. O. Box & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), Mammalian social learning. Comparative and ecological perspectives (pp. x–xiv). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, B., & Sampson, C. G. (1986). Analysis by replication of two Acheulian artefact assemblages. In G. N. Bailey & P. Callow (Eds.), Stone age prehistory (pp. 29–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. (2002). Language as a model for culture: Lessons from the cognitive sciences. In R. G. Fox & B. J. King (Eds.), Anthropology beyond culture (pp. 169–192). Oxford: Berg.

Brumm, A., & McLaren, A. (2011). Scraper reduction and “imposed form” at the Lower Palaeolithic site of High Lodge, England.

Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 185–204.

Clark, G. A. & Riel-Salvatore, J. (2006). Observations on systematics in Paleolithic archaeology. In E. Hovers & S. Kuhn (Eds.),

Transitions before the transition. Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age (pp. 29–56). New York: Springer.

Collard, M., & Wood, B. (2000). How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses? Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, 97, 5003–5006.

Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2009). The rise of Homo sapiens. The evolution of modern thinking. Oxford: Blackwell.

Davidson, I. (1999). The game of the name: Continuity and discontinuity in language origins. In B. J. King (Ed.), The origins of language. What nonhuman primates can tell us (pp. 229–268). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.

Davidson, I. (2002). The “Finished Artefact Fallacy”: Acheulean handaxes and language origins. In A. Wray (Ed.), Transitions to language (pp. 180–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davidson, I. (2003). The archaeological evidence of language origins: States of art. In M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby (Eds.), Language evolution (pp. 140–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davidson, I. (2009). Comment on Bar-Yosef and Van Peer. Current Anthropology, 50, 119–120.

Davidson, I. (2010a). The archaeology of cognitive evolution. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 214–229.

Davidson, I. (2010b). Stone tools and the evolution of hominin and human cognition. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition (pp. 185–205). Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Davidson, I. (2012). Origins of pictures: An argument for transformation of signs. In K. Sachs-Hombach & J. R. J. Schirra (Eds.),

Origins of Pictures. Anthropological Discourses in Image Science. Cologne: Halem.

Davidson, I. (2014). It’s the thought that counts: Unpacking the package of behaviour of the first people of Australia and its adjacent Islands. In R. Dennell & M. Porr (Eds.), Southern Asia, Australia and the search for human origins (pp. 243–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, I., & McGrew, W. C. (2005). Stone tools and the uniqueness of human culture. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11, 793–817.

Davidson, I., & Noble, W. (1993). Tools and language in human evolution. In K. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (pp. 363–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1986). Technique Levallois dans l'Australie du Sud-Est. Arqueologia (Porto), 13, 71–75.

de la Torre, I. (2010). Insights on the technical competence of the early Oldowan. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition (pp. 45–65). Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

de la Torre, I., Mora, R., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., de Luque, L., & Alcalá, L. (2003). The Oldowan industry of Peninj and its bearing on the reconstruction of the technological skills of Lower Pleistocene hominids. Journal of Human Evolution, 44, 203–224.

Deetz, J. (1967). Invitation to Archaeology. New York: Natural History Press.

Delagnes, A. & Meignen, L. (2006). Diversity of lithic production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France. Are there any chronological trends? In E. Hovers & S. Kuhn (Eds.), Transitions before the transition. Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age (pp. 85–107). New York: Springer.

Delagnes, A., & Roche, H. (2005). Late Pliocene hominid knapping skills: The case of Lokalalei 2C, West Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Human Evolution, 48, 435–472.

Dennell, R. W., Martinón-Torres, M., & Bermúdez de Castro, J. M. (2011). Hominin variability, climatic instability and population demography in Middle Pleistocene Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews, 30, 1511–1524.

Dibble, H. L. (1984). Interpreting typological variation of Middle Paleolithic scrapers: Function, style, or sequence of reduction?

Journal of Field Archaeology, 11, 431–436.

Dibble, H. L. (1987). Reduction sequences in the manufacture of Mousterian implements of France. In O. Soffer (Ed.), The Pleistocene old world: Regional perspectives (pp. 33–44). New York: Plenum Press.

Dibble, H. L. (1989). The implications of stone tool types for the presence of language during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. In P. A. Mellars & C. B. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution: Behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans (pp. 415–431). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Tresserras, J., Alcala, L., & Luque, L. (2001). Woodworking activities by early humans: A plant residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Journal of Human Evolution, 40, 289–299.

Enquist, M., & Ghirlanda, S. (2007). Evolution of social learning does not explain the origin of human cumulative culture. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 246, 129–135.

Féblot-Augustins, J. (1997). La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique (Vol. 1 et 2. ERAUL 75). Liège: Université de Liège.

Foley, R., & Lahr, M. M. (1997). Mode 3 technologies and the evolution of modern humans. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 7(1), 3–36.

Gagneux, P., Gonder, M. K., Goldberg, T. L., & Morin, P. A. (2001). Gene flow in wild chimpanzee populations: What genetic data tell us about chimpanzee movement over space and time. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 356, 889–897.

Gibbs, S., Collard, M., & Wood, B. (2000). Soft-tissue characters in higher primate phylogenetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97, 11130–11132.

Goddard, C. (2005). The lexical semantics of ‘culture’. Language Sciences, 27, 51–73.

Goldman-Neuman, T. & Hovers, E. (2009). Methodological considerations in the study of Oldowan raw material selectivity: Insights from A.L. 894 (Hadar, Ethiopia). In E. Hovers & D. R. Braun (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to the Oldowan (pp. 71–84). New York: Springer.

Goldman-Neuman, T., & Hovers, E. (2012). Raw material selectivity in Late Pliocene Oldowan sites in the Makaamitalu Basin, Hadar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution, 62, 353–366.

Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe. Patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Gowlett, J. A. J. (1984). Mental abilities of early Man: A look at some hard evidence. In R. A. Foley (Ed.), Hominid Evolution and Community Ecology (pp. 167–192). London: Academic Press.

McGrew, W. C., & Tutin, C. E. G. (1978). Evidence for social custom in wild chimpanzees? Man, 13, 234–251.

McPherron, S. P. (2000). Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, 655–663.

Mellars, P. A. (1969). The chronology of Mousterian industries in the Périgord region of South-West France. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 35, 134–171.

Mellars, P. A. (1989). Technological changes across the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition: Economic, social and cognitive perspectives. In P. A. Mellars & C. B. Stringer (Eds.), The human revolution: Behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin of modern humans (pp. 338–365). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mellars, P. A. (1996). Symbolism, language, and the Neanderthal mind. In P. Mellars & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), Modelling the early human mind (pp. 15–32). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Mellars, P. A., & French, J. C. (2011). Tenfold population increase in Western Europe at the Neandertal-to-modern human transition.

Science, 333, 623–627.

Mishra, S., Gaillard, C., Hertler, C., Moigne, A.-M., & Simanjuntak, T. (2010). India and Java: Contrasting records, intimate connections.

Quaternary International, 223–224, 265–270.

Moore, M. W. (2003a). Australian Aboriginal biface reduction technique on the Georgina Rive, Camooweal, Queensland. Australian Archaeology, 56, 22–34.

Moore, M. W. (2003b). Australian Aboriginal blade production methods on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland. Lithic Technology, 28, 27–54.

Moore, M. W. (2003c). Flexibility of stone tool manufacturing methods on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland. Archaeology in Oceania, 38, 23–36.

Moore, M. W. (2010). ‘Grammars of action’ and stone flaking design space. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition (pp. 13–43). Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Moore, M. W. (2011). The design space of stone flaking: Implications for cognitive evolution. World Archaeology, 43, 702–715.

Moore, M. W. (2013). Simple stone flaking in Australasia: Patterns and implications. Quaternary International, 285, 140–149.

Moore, M. W., & Brumm, A. (2007). Stone artifacts and hominins in Island Southeast Asia: New insights from Flores, Eastern Indonesia. [Review]. Journal of Human Evolution, 52, 85–102.

Nishida, T. (1986). Local traditions and cultural transmission. In B. B. Smuts, D. L. Cheney, R. M. Seyfarth, R. W. Wrangham, & T. T. Struhsaker (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 462–474). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Noble, W., & Davidson, I. (1996). Human evolution, language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nowell, A. (2010). Working memory and the speed of life. Current Anthropology, 51, S121–S133.

Nowell, A. (2016). Childhood, play and the evolution of cultural capacity in Neanderthals and Modern Humans. In M. N. Haidle, N. J. Conard, & M. Bolus (Eds.), The nature of culture (pp. 87–97). Dordrecht: Springer.

Nowell, A., & Davidson, I. (Eds.). (2010). Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Nowell, A., & White, M. J. (2010). Middle Pleistocene life history strategies and their relationship to Acheulean industries. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Perry, S. (2011). Social traditions and social learning in capuchin monkeys (Cebus). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 988–996.

Pope, M. I. (2002). The significance of biface-rich assemblages: An examination of the behavioural controls on lithic assemblage formation in the Lower Palaeolithic. University of Southampton, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.

Pope, M. I., Russel, K., & Watson, K. (2006). Biface form and structured behaviour in the Acheulean. Lithics, 27, 44–57.

Prasad, K. N. (1982). Was Ramapithecus a tool-user? Journal of Human Evolution, 11, 101–104.

Rainey, A. (1991). Some Australian bifaces. Lithics, 12, 33–36. Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rendell, L., & Whitehead, H. (2001). Cultures in whales and dolphins.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 309–382.

Reynolds, S. C., Bailey, G. N., & King, G. C. P. (2011). Landscapes and their relation to hominin habitats: Case studies from Australopithecus sites in Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 281–298.

Roberts, M. B., Parfitt, S. A., Pope, M. I., & Wenban-Smith, F. F. (1997). Boxgrove, West Sussex: Rescue excavations of a lower Palaeolitic landsurface. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 63, 303–358.

Roebroeks, W., Kolen, J., & Rensink, E. (1988). Planning depth, anticipation and the organization of Middle Palaeolithic technology: The “archaic native” meet Eve’s descendants. Helinium, 28, 17–34.

Rolland, N., & Dibble, H. L. (1990). A new synthesis of Middle Paleolithic variability. American Antiquity, 55, 480–499.

Ross, J., & Davidson, I. (2006). Rock art and ritual: An archaeological analysis of rock art in arid Central Australia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13, 305–341.

Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Williams, S. L., Furuichi, T., & Kano, T. (1996). Language perceived: Paniscus branches out. In W. C. McGrew, L. F. Marchant, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Great ape societies (pp. 173–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Fields, W. M., & Spircu, T. (2004). The emergence of knapping and vocal expression embedded in a Pan/Homo culture. Biology and Philosophy, 19, 541–575.

Schäfer, J. (1990). Conjoining of artefacts and consideration of raw material. Their application at the Middle Palaeolithic site of Schweinskopf-Karmelenberg. In E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoff, N. Arts, & D. Winter (Eds.), The Big Puzzle. Proceedings of the international symposium on refitting stone artefacts (pp. 83–100). Bonn: Holos.

Schlanger, N. (1996). Understanding Levallois: Lithic technology and cognitive Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 6, 231–254.

Sharon, G. (2008). The impact of raw material on Acheulian large flake production. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1329–1344.

Sharon, G. (2010). Large flake Acheulian. Quaternary International, 223–224, 226–233.

Shennan, S. J., & Steele, J. (1999). Cultural learning in hominids: A behavioural ecological approach. In H. O. Box & K. R. Gibson (Eds.),

Mammalian social learning. Comparative and ecological perspectives

(pp. 367–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stiner, M. C. (1994). Honor among thieves. A zooarchaeological study of Neandertal Ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stiner, M. C. (2006). Middle Paleolithic subsistence ecology of the Mediterranean region. In E. Hovers & S. Kuhn (Eds.), Transitions before the transition. Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age (pp. 213–231). New York: Springer.

Stiner, M. C., & Kuhn, S. L. (1992). Subsistence, technology, and adaptive variation in Middle Palaeolithic Italy. American Anthropologist, 94, 306–339.

Tennie, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Ratcheting up the ratchet: on the evolution of cumulative culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 2405–2415.

Tennie, C., Braun, D. R., Premo, L. S., & McPherron, S. P. (2016). The Island test for cumulative culture in the Paleolithic. In M. N. Haidle, N. J. Conard, & M. Bolus (Eds.), The nature of culture (pp. 121– 131). Dordrecht: Springer.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Toth, N. (1985). The Oldowan reassessed: A close look at early stone artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 12, 101–120.

Trinkaus, E., & Shipman, P. (1993). The Neandertals. Changing the image of mankind. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Tylor, E. B. (1870). Primitive culture. Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, language, art, and custom. London: John Murray.

Van Peer, P. (1992). The Levallois reduction strategy. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

van Schaik, C. P., & Pradhan, G. R. (2003). A model for tool-use traditions in primates: Implications for the coevolution of culture and cognition. Journal of Human Evolution, 44, 645–664.

van Schaik, C. P., Ancrenaz, M., Borgen, G., Galdikas, B., Knott, C. D., Singleton, I., et al. (2003). Orangutan cultures and the evolution of material culture. Science, 299, 102–105.

Vandermeersch, B. (1981). Les hommes fossiles de Qafzeh (Israël). Paris: CNRS.

Visalberghi, E., & Fragaszy, D. (1990). Do monkeys ape? In S. Taylor Parker & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), “Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

White, L. A. (1959). The evolution of culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Whiten, A., & Boesch, C. (2001). The cultures of chimpanzees.

Scientific American, 284(1), 48–55.

Whiten, A., & van Schaik, C. (2007). The evolution of animal ‘cultures’ and social intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 603–620.

Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W. C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., et al. (1999). Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature, 399, 682–685.

Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W. C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., et al. (2001). Charting cultural variation in chimpanzees. Behaviour, 138, 1481–1516.

Whiten, A., Horner, V., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2003). Cultural panthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 92–105.

Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity, 48, 253–276.

Wynn, T., & Coolidge, F. (2010). How Levallois reduction is similar to, and not similar to, playing chess. In A. Nowell & I. Davidson (Eds.), Stone tools and the evolution of human cognition. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.

Wynn, T., & McGrew, W. C. (1989). An ape’s eye view of the Oldowan. Man, 24, 383–398.

Wynn, T., Hernandez-Aguilar, R. A., Marchant, L. F., & McGrew, W. C. (2011). “An ape’s view of the Oldowan” revisited. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20, 181–197.

Zhang, P., Huang, W., & Wang, W. (2010). Acheulean handaxes from Fengshudao, Bose sites of South China. Quaternary International, 223–224, 440–443.