lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–34

Contents lists avai

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: ht tp: / /www.elsevier .com/locate/ jas

Critical reassessment of putative Acheulean Porosphaera globularis beads

Solange Rigaud a,*, Francesco d’Errico a,b, Marian Vanhaeren c, Christian Neumann d

a UMR 5199 PACEA, Institut de Prehistoire et de Geologie du Quaternaire, Universite Bordeaux I, Avenue des Facultes, F-33405 Talence, Franceb Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africac CNRS UMR 7041 ArScAn, Ethnologie prehistorique, 21 allee de l’universite, F-92023 Nanterre Cedex, Franced Museum fur Naturkunde, Humboldt University, Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 April 2008Received in revised form 7 July 2008Accepted 7 July 2008

Keywords:Behavioural modernityLower PalaeolithicOrnamentsSymbolismTaphonomyFossil sponges

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 540002479.E-mail address: solange.rigaud@etu.u-bordeaux1.f

0305-4403/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.07.001

a b s t r a c t

Excavations at Acheulean sites in northern Europe at the end of the 19th century have yielded fossilsponges belonging to the Late Cretaceous species Porosphaera globularis. The spherical morphology ofthese fossils, their small size, and the presence of a natural complete perforation in their center have ledsome archaeologists to interpret them as the oldest known beads. Others argue that the presence ofthese fossils at archaeological sites is due to natural processes. Re-examination of material collectedduring the 19th century has recently revived the bead interpretation. We tested the bead hypothesis byanalyzing 13 samples of Porosphaera from nine sites in Britain and France. We conducted morphometricand microscopic analyses on specimens recovered from archaeological sites (n¼ 349), a naturalgeological sample, which was collected directly from Cretaceous strata (n¼ 352), and a sample froma Bronze Age burial (n¼ 43). Reappraisal of contextual data shows that the association of these finds withAcheulean artifacts is uncertain. Our results show that archaeological specimens are significantlydifferent in size and perforation pattern from those of the natural geological sample. This may be due tosize-sorting caused by sedimentary processes, size-selection by Palaeolithic people or by 19th centurycollectors. Modifications of the fossils’ natural shape were detected on a few specimens in the form oflocalized abrasions and microchipping along the hole margins. A single specimen displays a facet close tothe hole produced by grinding. The surfaces of these features exhibit a hue lighter than that observed onthe remainder of the specimens indicating that they may be recent in origin and due to post-excavationand preservation treatment. However, this seems contradicted, for some specimens from Bedford, by thefact that according to Smith, W.G. [1884. On a Palaeolithic floor at North-East London. Journal of theAnthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 13, 357–384] the specimens bearing microchippingand abrasions were found by him and ‘‘not touched or manipulated by the workmen’’. We conclude thatnew excavations of these sites, involving systematic screening of sediments, are needed in order toattempt to solve the Porosphaera ‘‘mystery’’.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

One of archaeology’s endeavors is to identify when and howsymbolic thinking emerged in human history (e.g. Ambrose, 1998;Chase and Dibble, 1987; Conard and Bolus, 2003; Davidson andNoble, 1992; d’Errico, 2003; d’Errico and Vanhaeren, 2007; Hoversand Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Klein, 1989; McBrearty and Brooks, 2000;Mellars, 1989; Shea, 2003; Stringer and Gamble, 1993; Wadley,2001). Due to their inherent symbolic meaning, personal ornamentshave come to play an important role in this debate, and all agreethat beads are one of the hallmarks of symbolic thinking (e.g.Bednarik, 2005a; d’Errico and Vanhaeren, 2008; d’Errico et al.,

r (S. Rigaud).

All rights reserved.

2005; Henshilwood et al., 2004; Kuhn et al., 2001; Kuhn and Stiner,2007; Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Zilhao, 2007). Divergent opinionsexist, however, as to what constitutes the earliest evidence of beaduse and the taxonomic status of the first beadmakers.

1.1. The oldest beads

At present, the oldest known personal ornaments are beadsmade of marine shells discovered at six different sites in Africa andthe Levant. Forty-one Nassarius kraussianus, perforated and bearinganthropogenic use-wear, were discovered in the Still Bay layers ofBlombos Cave (Western Cape Province, South Africa) dated to75 kyr BP (d’Errico et al., 2005; Henshilwood et al., 2004). Sixpossible beads made of Afrolittorina africana shells have beenrecently reported from the Still Bay levels of Sibudu Cave (SouthAfrica), which are older than 70 kyr BP (d’Errico et al., 2008). Two

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–3426

perforated shells belonging to the species Nassarius gibbosulus werefound in the 100 kyr old Mousterian layers of Skhul (Israel), and oneshell of the same species was recovered from the Aterian layers ofOued Djebbana (Bir-el-Ater, Algeria), which may date to 60–90 kyrBP (Vanhaeren et al., 2006). More recently, 13 N. gibbosulus shells,most of which are perforated and exhibit traces of red ochre, werereported from the Middle Palaeolithic layers of the Grotte desPigeons (Taforalt, Morocco) dated to ca. 82.5 kyr BP (Bouzouggaret al., 2007). Four Glycymeris shells with perforations on the umbo,one of which shows traces of red ochre, are reported from the layersof Qafzeh (Israel) that have yielded burials attributed to Anatomi-cally Modern Humans (AMH) and dated to 90 kyr BP (Taborin,2003).

No unequivocal personal ornaments reliably dated to betweenca. 70 and 40 kyr ago are known from Africa and Eurasia.

Around 40 kyr BP, they reappear, almost simultaneously, inAfrica and the Middle East and appear for the first time in Europe,Siberia, and Australia. In Africa, they take the form of ostricheggshell beads and stone rings (Ambrose, 1998; Conard, 2005;d’Errico and Vanhaeren, 2008), and perforated marine shells in theLevant (Kuhn et al., 2001). In New Guinea, a perforated shark toothwas recently found at a site dated to between 39.5 and 28 kyr(Leavesley, 2007). In Australia, the first ornaments date back to ca.30 kyr BP and consist of modified marine gastropod and Dentaliumshells (Balme and Morse, 2006). In Siberia, initial Upper Palaeolithicsites dated to ca. 35 kyr BP have yielded a varied repertoire ofornaments, including perforated animal teeth, decorated bone rods,ostrich eggshell beads, ivory, bone and stone pendants (Derevianko,2005; d’Errico and Vanhaeren, 2008).

In Europe, the oldest unequivocal beads have been traditionallyassociated with the Aurignacian technocomplex, generally consid-ered as the product of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH)(Churchill and Smith, 2000; Hublin, 2000; Kozlowski and Otte,2000; Stringer, 2002). The Aurignacian bead repertoire is extremelyrich and includes 196 bead types from 116 sites (Vanhaeren andd’Errico, 2006). It is now clear, however, that personal ornamentswere also produced by the makers of other Early Upper Palaeolithictechnocomplexes, most of which date back to ca. 40 kyr BP(Anikovich et al., 2007; d’Errico and Vanhaeren, 2008).

1.2. The earliest beadmakers

It has been repeatedly argued that personal ornaments are oneof the innovations that emerged in Africa among early ModernHumans, and that they represent behaviours that allowed them tomigrate out of Africa and determined their evolutionary success(McBrearty and Brooks, 2000). However, no continuity is observedin beadworking traditions after their first occurrence in Africa andthe Levant. The earliest African, Near Eastern and Australian beadsare arguably the product of AMH populations. The situation ismore complex in Europe, where a Neanderthal authorship for theChatelperronian and associated beadworking tradition appearswidely accepted (Bailey and Hublin, 2006; Mellars et al., 2007;Zilhao and d’Errico, 2003; Zilhao et al., 2006).

The use of personal ornaments by Mousterian Neanderthals andearlier hominids is a controversial issue. Bones and teeth perforatedby humans and interpreted as pendants have been claimed for sixMousterian sites (Pech de l’Aze, Bois Roche, Kulna, Repolusthole,Prolom II, Bocksteinschmiede). However, comparative analyses ofsome of these objects and bone fragments perforated by knowntaphonomic agents have shown that no solely anthropogenicmodifications can be detected and that perforations can result frompartial digestion by carnivores (d’Errico and Villa, 1997). Cave bearteeth bearing a groove from the Mousterian site of Sclayn (Belgium)were interpreted as personal ornaments by Otte et al. (1983), before

Gautier (1986) showed convincingly that these modificationsresulted from natural tooth wear.

Two instances of ornaments from Lower Palaeolithic sites arereported in the literature. Three fragments of ostrich eggshell beadswere apparently found at the Acheulean site of El Greifa (Libya)(Bednarik, 1997; Ziegert, 1995). More detailed information on thedating, stratigraphic and cultural context of these finds is necessaryto verify this claim (Kuckenburg, 2001). The other instance of LowerPalaeolithic ornaments, which is the focus of this article, is repre-sented by naturally perforated fossil sponges, Porosphaera glob-ularis Phillips 1829, dated to the Santonian stage of the LateCretaceous, and found at Acheulean sites in England and northernFrance (Bednarik, 2005a,b; Boucher de Perthes, 1847; Rigollot,1854; Smith, 1884).

1.3. The P. globularis evidence

P. globularis is a marine spherical calcareous sponge which waswidely widespread in the boreal Late Cretaceous. It first occurred inTuronian stage and became extinct in the Late Maastrichtian at theend of the Mesozoic era. As a fossil, it is found most commonly inchalk lithofacies but also occurs in marls and bioclastic limestones.Porosphaera often contains central borings which have beenstudied in detail recently by Neumann et al. (2008). The boringtraces (ichnospecies Trypanites mobilis) have been referred to theactivity of sipunculan worms, which utilized the bored sponges asmobile shelters (Neumann et al., 2008). Complete penetrations areoften found in poorly preserved, worn specimens. They are theresult of erosion, since the sipunculan worms never penetrated thesponge completely. Boucher de Perthes (1847) was the first tomention the discovery at Cagny, an Acheulean site in the SommeRiver valley (Somme, France), of ‘‘grains de colliers’’ (necklacebeads) made of stone. Rigollot (1854) later reported similardiscoveries at Acheulean sites located in the same area and statedthat, in one case, the stone beads, identified by him as the fossilsponge Coscinopora globularis, were found together, which heinterpreted as a proof that they were originally part of a singlenecklace. In 1862, James Wyatt reported the discovery of more than200 specimens from Biddenham (Bedfordshire, England), anddescribed modifications around the holes that he interpreted asevidence of manmade drilling. In 1884, Smith recovered C. glob-ularis specimens from an Acheulean site near Bedford (England). Hereported, as did Rigollot, the discovery of an accumulation of fossilsat a single spot, which seemed to him difficult to attribute tonatural causes. He interpreted abrasions close to the perforations asthe result of rubbing between strung beads. Some perforationsappeared artificially enlarged and ‘‘fresh’’ to him (Smith, 1884: 375).Others contained a ‘‘black substance’’ that he interpreted to beresidues of ‘‘ligaments’’ used to string the Coscinopora together.Chemical analysis performed by Hobson (in Smith, 1884, p. 375)revealed that the residues were composed of organic matter. Onecentury later, Keeley (1980) analyzed the specimens from Smith’sexcavations at Bedford at high magnification, and concluded thatsome perforations were artificially enlarged. After this date, thesefossil sponges were reattributed to the genus Porosphaera (Bednarik,2005a,b). A decade later, Marshack (1991) reached the same con-clusion and also noted the presence of a black substance inside theperforations. The anthropogenic origin of Porosphaera accumula-tions has been challenged by Oakley (1965) who noted that these‘‘nests’’ were similar to those found by Sheppard (in Oakley, 1965,p. 16) in glacial gravels from Yorkshire, which he interpreted asaccumulations produced by stream transport. This process wouldbe responsible for the sorting of the fossil by size and weight. Somepaleontologists have attributed the holes to the development ofthe sponge around a foreign body (Hinde, 1904; Oakley, 1965;Steinmann, 1878; Stolley, 1892; Toms, 1932) or to post-mortem

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–34 27

modifications (Nielsen, 1929) by boring organisms (Nestler, 1961)such as sipunculid worms (Neumann et al., 2008).

After their first discovery at Saint-Acheul, the unequivocal use ofPorosphaera as ornaments has been recognized at more recentarchaeological sites. P. globularis beads have been found at Proto-historic and Historic sites in England (Toms, 1932). Other examplesinclude a necklace from the Bronze Age burial of Higham, Kent,a hairpin made of bone and encrusted with a Porosphaera from theRoman site of Hants, Hampshire, and a Porosphaera bracelet froma Saxon burial from the Highdown Hill cemetery, West Sussex.During the 19th century Porosphaera were collected on Brightonbeach, strung together, and sold as lucky necklaces. At the begin-ning of the 20th century, single Porosphaera were worn in the sametown by fishermen’s wives (Oakley, 1965).

More recently, Bednarik (2005a,b) has strongly argued in favorof the use of P. globularis as beads by Acheulean hominids. Heaccepts that holes in these fossils are natural but contends that thearchaeological specimens kept at the Pitt Rivers Museum aredifferent in size, shape and perforation frequency from those foundin natural assemblages. The fossils used as beads were, on average,smaller than those from natural populations. Spherical specimenswith complete or nearly complete perforations were exceedinglyrare in natural assemblages (0.7%), supporting the case for delib-erate selection by hominids. Bednarik’s (2005b: 212) microscopicanalysis revealed evidence of ‘‘flaking and percussion or pressuredamage’’ around the holes, which he interpreted as the result ofpunching the hole to open or enlarge the perforation. Wear facetsclose to the perforations are interpreted as being produced byfriction between strung beads. For comparative purposes, however,Bednarik used data from an old study (Nestler, 1961) in which onlytwo morphometric variables were reported. Moreover, no statis-tical analysis is available in Bednarik’s study for the evaluation ofthe differences between archaeological and natural populations.We focus on these fossils in order to evaluate the possible role ofhuman agency in their selection, to identify possible traces ofmanufacture and use-wear, and to determine whether they wereused as beads by Acheulean hominids.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Archaeological material

Reliability of the Acheulean cultural attribution of purportedLower Palaeolithic Porosphaera beads was evaluated by taking intoaccount available information regarding stratigraphic context,

Table 1Contextual information on Porosphaera globularis specimens analyzed in this study

Inventory number Place of conservation Site Region

E.1129 NHM Saint-Acheul Somme1884.76.67 PRM Amiens Somme1894.21.25.1-2-3-4-5 PRM Le Pecq Ile de France1894.21.24.1-41 PRM Paris Ile de France1910.72.81 PRM Soissons Picardie1894.21.26.1-6 PRM Loirea Unknown1910.75.157-186 PRM Biddenham1 Bedfordshire1910.75.188-215 PRM Biddenham2 Bedfordshire1906.6.7-8-9-10 PRM Biddenham3 Bedfordshire1904.49.41.2.1-49 PRM Bedford1 Bedfordshire1904.49.1.1-17 PRM Bedford2 Bedfordshire1921.91.481 PRM UK1a Unknown1916.34.3.1-2 PRM UK2a Unknown

PRM: Pitt Rivers Museum, NHM: Natural History Museum.(1) Localities considered as probably Acheulean by Bednarik (2005a,b).

a Collections from unspecified sites.b Cultural attribution given in the museum catalogue.c Uncertain cultural attribution.

associated archaeological materials, discovery circumstances, andcollection history and conservation. We analyzed 13 collections ofP. globularis from localities in the UK and France (Table 1, Fig. 1).Twelve collections are housed at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxfordand are those referred to by Bednarik (2005a,b). The remainingcollection is from the Acheulean type site of Saint-Acheul in northernFrance and is kept at the Natural History Museum, London. Eighteenitems present in these collections were identified as naturallyperforated pebbles (n¼ 12), fragments of fossil coral (n¼ 2), acrinoid, a Dentalium sp., a Littorina littorea, and a Nucella lapillus,which reduced the number of analyzed P. globularis to 349.

2.2. Natural reference sample

Our reference sample consists of 352 P. globularis gathered byone of us (CN) near Rugen, Germany (Fig. 1). The specimens werecollected at the base of the white chalk cliff on the northeasternpart of the Jasmund peninsula, north of Sassnitz. Here, Porosphaeracan be collected in large numbers on the beach after winter stormswhen chalk boulders drop down the cliff and subsequently geteroded by wave action. The sample is housed at the Museum furNaturkunde in Berlin.

2.3. Archaeological reference sample

In order to have reference data on P. globularis modified byhumans, we examined the necklace from the Bronze Age burial ofHigham, Kent, kept at the Natural History Museum, London.According to Toms (1932), this object was originally composed of 79Porosphaera, but only 43 fossils were available for study at theNational History Museum.

2.4. Analytical methods

Porosphaera housed at the Pitt Rivers Museum are strungtogether with cotton thread (Fig. 2). We disassembled these ‘‘neck-laces’’ in order to photograph, measure, and study each specimenunder the microscope. We recorded the presence of complete andincomplete perforations on natural fossils from Rugen and archae-ological fossils from ‘‘Acheulean’’ sites, and the Bronze Age site ofHigham. Seven morphometric variables were recorded on theperforated specimens: perforation length, maximum and minimumdiameter of the specimens, maximum and minimum diameter ofboth perforation openings (Fig. 3). The coefficient of sphericity(Wadell, 1935) was calculated for all specimens (Fig. 4). Statistical

Country Cultural attributionb n References

France Acheulean 16 Boucher de Perthes (1847)France Unknown (1) 30 Rigollot (1854), Bednarik (2005a,b)France Unknown 10 UnpublishedFrance Unknown (1) 29 Bednarik (2005a,b)France Unknown (1) 11 Bednarik (2005a,b)France Unknown 5 Bednarik (2005a,b)England Acheulean 30 Smith (1884), Bednarik (2005a,b)England Acheulean 29 Smith (1884)England Neolithicc 3 Bednarik (2005a,b)England Unknown (1) 49 Bednarik (2005a,b)England Unknown (1) 17 Bednarik (2005a,b)England Unknown (1) 19 Bednarik (2005a,b)England Acheulean 101 Bednarik (2005a,b)

Fig. 1. Archaeological sites where Porosphaera globularis have been recovered.

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–3428

analyses were performed using Statview 5. Considering the poorcontextual information available for most of these collections,statistical analyses were performed separately in order to identifypossible differences between them before comparison to reference

Fig. 2. Museum curated archaeological collections of Porosphaera globularis. (a) Fossils from(b) strung specimens from Saint-Acheul; (c) strung specimens from Paris. Scale¼ 1 cm.

collections. Archaeological specimens were examined using a low-power reflected-light microscope (Leica M3C) equipped witha digital camera to identify possible traces of manufacture and use.Relevant microscopic features were systematically photographed.

Biddenham, left: specimens strung with a cotton thread, right: unthreaded specimens;

Fig. 3. Morphometric variables recorded on Porosphaera globularis specimens fromBritish and French ‘‘Acheulean’’ sites, Higham Bronze Age burial, and a natural refer-ence collection from Rugen, Germany.

Fig. 4. Metric variables used to calculate the coefficient of sphericity of the Porosphaeraglobularis specimens from ‘‘Acheulean’’ sites, Higham Bronze Age burial, and naturalspecimens from Rugen. Vp: volume; Ap: surface area; a: semi-major axis, b: semi-minor axis.

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–34 29

3. Results

3.1. Archaeological context

The archaeological contexts of alleged Acheulean P. globularisare poorly documented. Our survey of the literature and museumcatalogues reveals that only Porosphaera from Amiens (Rigollot,

Table 2Specimen and perforation maximum and mean diameters recorded on Porosphaera glob

Provenance n Maximum diameter (mm)

Mean Std. dev. Min.

Saint-Acheul 16 11.06 4.31 11.8Amiens 30 12.07 1.59 8.10Le Pecq 10 13.60 2.40 9.70Paris 29 13.71 3.03 8.30Soissons 11 13.76 1.79 9.80Loire 5 13.82 2.43 10.70Biddenham1 30 10.51 3.50 7.70Biddenham2 29 13.80 1.68 10.20Biddenham3 3 17.06 6.54 11.50Bedford1 49 13.46 2.41 7.50Bedford2 17 19.85 3.30 13.30UK1 19 13.88 2.85 9.10UK2 101 12.19 2.85 7.10Higham 43 15.40 4.10 9.25Rugen 34 11.00 4.22 0.72

1854), Saint-Acheul (Boucher de Perthes, 1847), and perhapsBiddenham (Wyatt, 1861) were collected in archaeological context(Table 1). For the other collections housed at the Pitt RiversMuseum, only the approximate place of the discovery and theacquisition date are known. Although an Acheulean attribution ofthe three archaeological sites cited above is clear, no information isavailable on the stratigraphic and spatial association of P. globulariswith Acheulean artifacts. No Porosphaera were reported fromrecent excavations conducted at Biddenham and Saint-Acheul(Harding et al., 1991; Tuffreau, 1987).

3.2. Occurrence of perforation and morphometric analysis

Marked differences exist between natural and archaeologicalPorosphaera samples. With the exception of two semi-perforatedpieces, all archaeological specimens, including those from theHigham Bronze Age burial, bear a complete hole. This is the case foronly 9.7% of the specimens from the natural reference collection ofRugen; 6.3% present an incomplete hole. The maximum diameter ofthe archaeological specimens (‘‘Acheulean’’ specimens and BronzeAge specimens from Higham) is significantly larger than the naturalreference collection from Rugen (P< 0.05) (Table 2; Fig. 5).Maximum perforation diameters of archaeological specimens arealso significantly larger than those from the comparative naturalcollection from Rugen (P< 0.09) (Fig. 5.). The plots of the maximumdiameter of the specimens against maximum diameter of theperforations confirm that small pieces with small perforations areabsent in the ‘‘Acheulean’’ and Bronze Age archaeological collec-tions (Fig. 6). There is a stronger correlation between these vari-ables in the natural collection from Rugen (R2¼ 0.822) than isobserved in the ‘‘Acheulean’’ and Bronze Age archaeologicalcollections (R2< 0.62). Significant differences also exist betweenarchaeological collections in the specimens’ and perforations’maximum diameter. For instance, specimens from Bedford2 arecomparatively larger and have wider perforations than those fromAmiens (P< 0.0001). Comparison of the coefficient of sphericityindicates that the specimens from Paris, Bedford2, Biddenham1,UK1 and 2, Saint-Acheul, and Higham are significantly morespherical (P< 0.05) than those from Rugen (Table 3).

3.3. Microscopic analysis

In about a third (26%) of the archaeological specimens from‘‘Acheulean’’ sites and the Bronze Age burial the yellowish patinathat covers their surface is absent on the area adjacent to theperforation, revealing the clear shade of the inner matrix (Fig. 7).

ularis from ‘‘Acheulean’’, Bronze Age (Higham), and Rugen collections

Perforation maximum diameter (mm)

Max. Mean Std. dev. Min. Max.

20.60 4.38 0.97 2.40 6.0016.50 4.21 0.77 3.10 6.6017.30 5.12 1.26 3.10 7.3021.50 5.46 1.43 3.20 8.4016.80 4.83 0.83 3.40 6.1016.40 5.56 0.95 4.40 6.5022.90 6.09 1.31 3.50 9.9016.70 5.57 0.95 4.00 9.2024.20 6.65 2.12 4.70 8.9018.00 5.66 1.15 3.50 8.1024.30 6.42 1.04 4.00 7.8020.90 5.67 2.05 3.00 12.6021.30 4.11 1.08 1.80 7.70

9.32 4.84 1.18 2.25 7.854.30 24.90 3.38 0.21 0.21

Fig. 5. Box-plots of the maximum specimen diameter and maximum perforationdiameter recorded on ‘‘Acheulean’’ specimens (white), Bronze Age specimens fromHigham (light grey), and natural specimens from Rugen (dark grey).

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–3430

Three archaeological specimens from Bedford2 and two from Bid-denham2 exhibit continuous microchipping around the perforationthat has removed large areas of the original pitted outer naturalsurface (Fig. 8a–e). The centrifugal orientation of the removalsindicates that the agent responsible for them exerted a pressure onthe hole’s edge from inside the perforation. Removals lack thepatina covering the remainder of the objects and their edges appearparticularly fresh. With a single exception, microchipping is foundon the specimens with the smaller perforations (Fig. 9), whichsupports the idea that it was executed in order to enlarge the hole.A single specimen out of a collection of 101, recovered at anunknown British site (UK2), exhibits two adjacent flat facetscovered with parallel striations located close to the perforation(Fig. 8f), which probably result from rubbing the piece againsta fine-grained grinding stone. These facets lack the patina coveringthe remainder of the fossil’s surface.

Fig. 6. Scattergrams of maximum specimen diameter against maximum perforationdiameter for Porosphaera globularis fossils from the collections analyzed in this study(confidence ellipse: 95%).

4. Discussion and conclusion

Determining whether P. globularis were used as beads byAcheulean people requires evidence for human agency in theirselection, transport, accumulation, manufacturing and use. Theoccurrence of these fossil sponges at archaeological sites fromsouthern England and northern France may be due to non-humanprocesses or it may be anthropogenic in origin. With the exceptionof two collections (Saint-Acheul and Biddenham), no preciseinformation as to provenance is available, which precludesdiscussion of the possible agent of transport and accumulation. Asfor the two Acheulean sites that have yielded the fossils, Saint-Acheul and Biddenham are close to Santonian fossil outcrops whereP. globularis occurs naturally. The archaeological sites are located ondownstream alluvial terraces of the Great Ouse and Somme Riverbasins. Such locations make it possible that the ‘‘archaeological’’Porosphaera could have naturally eroded from upstream fossil

outcrops (Caveleir and Feugeur, 1967; Dorigny et al., 1983; Hae-saerts and Dupuis, 1986; Wilson and Farquharson, 1900).

Due to poor recording methods used during excavations con-ducted during the 19th century at Saint-Acheul and Biddenham, no

Table 3Coefficient of sphericity of Porosphaera globularis from the collections analyzed inthis study

Provenance n Coefficient of sphericity

Mean Std. dev. Min. Max.

Saint-Acheul 16 0.99 0.01 0.95 1.00Amiens 30 0.99 0.01 0.95 1.00Le Pecq 10 0.98 0.02 0.92 0.99Paris 29 0.97 0.03 0.86 0.99Soissons 11 0.99 0.00 0.98 0.99Loire 5 0.97 0.01 0.95 0.99Biddenham1 30 0.99 0.01 0.96 1.00Biddenham2 29 0.99 0.01 0.97 0.99Biddenham3 3 0.99 0.00 0.98 0.99Bedford1 49 0.98 0.01 0.90 1.00Bedford2 17 0.99 0.00 0.98 1.00UK1 19 0.99 0.01 0.95 1.00UK2 101 0.99 0.01 0.95 1.00Higham 43 0.98 0.03 0.77 1.00Rugen 34 0.92 0.18 0.24 1.00

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–34 31

reliable information is available on the spatial distribution of therecovered Porosphaera and their possible relationship with diag-nostic Acheulean artifacts. Since no proof exists that the fossilswere deposited during the human occupation of these sites, theloose association of fossils and artifacts cannot be used to supportthe hypothesis that humans were the agents of transport andaccumulation. Moreover, no such fossils were found during morerecent excavations conducted neither at these two sites nor at thenumerous excavations of Acheulean sites conducted in England andnorthern France during the past three decades (Harding et al., 1991;Tuffreau et al., 2001). Although excavations at the French epony-mous site and Biddenham were conducted over relatively smallsurfaces, the absence of Porosphaera at these and other sitessuggests that the fossils, when present in the deposits, are notdirectly associated with the archeological layers. This seems tocontradict the hypothesis that hominids were their agent ofaccumulation.

Fig. 7. Porosphaera globularis showing the absence of the yellowish patina close to their perfoParis collection; (c) specimen from the Bedford1 collection; (d) specimen from the Biddenh

Our results indicate that specimens from museum collectionsdiffer significantly, with respect to dimension and perforation size,from those of our natural reference collection. Many also showa more regular spherical shape. Three reasons may account for thisdifference: a sorting bias introduced by a natural process ora deliberate choice made either by Acheulean hominids or by 19thcentury collectors. If the accumulation of these fossils resulted fromnatural processes we would expect, considering the high propor-tion of non-perforated specimens in natural assemblages, to finda considerable number of them in the museum collections. The factthat these collections are almost exclusively composed of perfo-rated specimens clearly suggests human selection, either ancient orrecent. The last explanation has so far not been taken into consid-eration in spite of the well-known role that this bias played in theformation of archaeological assemblages (Marean, 1998; Mareanand Assefa, 1999). The larger perforations found in the museumspecimens also support a human choice, as one cannot reasonablyexpect that this feature would be subjected to natural sortingprocesses.

Reappraisal of the modifications interpreted in the past as due tomanufacture or use-wear can be perceived as challenging the beadinterpretation. The localized abrasions exposing the internal matrixof the archaeological Porosphaera, recorded on a number of speci-mens, appear fresh and are probably due to friction from rubbingagainst other fossils strung in ‘‘necklaces’’ by collectors andmuseums curators. The same applies to microchipping and theground facets found on one specimen. However, the presence ofabrasions and microchipping around the hole is described first bythe authors who interpreted the Porosphaera as Acheulean beads.This suggests that, at least in some cases, the modifications that werecorded were present on the fossils before they were housed in themuseums. We do not know, however, whether the Porosphaerawere already strung in necklaces when accessioned by museumsnor when sediments were removed from their holes. The latteraction could produce microchipping. For most of the examinedcollections, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the modi-fication attributed to Acheulean hominids was, in fact, produced in

ration and revealing the clear shade of their inner matrix. (a and b) Specimens from theam2 collection. Scale¼ 1 mm.

Fig. 8. Microchipping (a–e) and traces of grinding (f) around the perforation on Porosphaera globularis from the Pitt Rivers Museum collection. (a, c and d) Bedford2 specimens; (band e) Biddenham2 specimens; (f) specimen from an unknown English collection (UK2). Scale¼ 1 mm.

Fig. 9. Maximum perforation diameter distributions of Porosphaera globularis for theBedford2 and Biddenham2 collections. Arrows indicate the maximum perforationdiameters of specimens displaying microchipping around their perforations.

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–3432

the time span between their exhumations and first description by19th century archaeologists. Only the Porosphaera found by Smithat Bedford seem to get around this problem. Smith (1884: 375)states unambiguously that the specimens bearing microchippingand abrasions around the holes were found by him and ‘‘nottouched or manipulated by the workmen’’. This suggests that, inspite of their fresh appearance, some of the modifications recordedmay indeed be ancient.

Should we accept this last case as formal proof that Acheuleanhominids in this region of Europe used personal ornaments 200 kyrago and possessed a symbolic material culture? We think that theevidence is too scant and ambiguous to embrace this conclusion. Noother possible ornaments are found in this region before the UpperPalaeolithic (d’Errico and Vanhaeren, 2007). The few possibleinstances of pigment use and markings in the Lower Palaeolithic donot provide compelling support to the idea that symbolic culturesflourished in Europe during the Lower Palaeolithic (see reviews ind’Errico et al., 2003; Zilhao, 2007). The more convincing, such as theochre from Becov (Bohemia, Czech Republic) (Marshack, 1981), andthe incised bones from Bilzingsleben (Germany) (Mania and Mania,1988; Steguweit, 1999) need to be reappraised. The evidenceoutside Europe is not straightforward either. Apart from the poorlydated beads reported from El Greifa (Libya), no convincing personalornaments are found at sites older than 130 kyr BP (Vanhaerenet al., 2006). The Tan Tan ‘‘figurine’’ (Morocco) (Bednarik, 2003) isalso poorly dated. The modifications observed on the tuff fragmentsfrom the Berekhat Ram Acheulean site in Israel (d’Errico andNowell, 2000) are, at present, the only tenuous, albeit well-datedevidence indicating that Acheulean hominids may have beeninvolved in symbolic activities. There are, however, reasons to keepan open mind on this issue. Until a few years ago, few scholarswould have envisioned the use of ornaments at sites dated to80 kyr BP, a fact which has now become widely accepted. Recentexcavations at Biddenham and Saint-Acheul were conducted overa relatively reduced surface with the aim of reappraising the stra-tigraphy of these sites rather than recovering a representativesample of Acheulean artifacts. Our results indicate that new

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–34 33

excavations of these sites, involving systematic screening of thesediments, are needed if we are to resolve the Porosphaera‘‘mystery’’.

Acknowledgements

We thank William Banks and Chris Duffin for critical reading ofthe manuscript. We are indebted to Zena McGreevy, HenningScholz, Chris Stringer, and Rob Kruszynski, for giving access to thecollections from the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, the Museum furNaturkunde, Berlin, and the Natural History Museum, London. Thisresearch was funded by the Origin of Man, Language and LanguagesProgram of the European Science Foundation.

References

Ambrose, S.H., 1998. Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production in EastAfrica. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 377–392.

Anikovich, M.V., Sinitsyn, A.A., Hoffecker, J., Holliday, V., Popov, V.V., Lisitsyn, S.N.,Forman, S., Levkovskaya, G.M., Pospelova, G.A., Kuz’mina, I.E., Burova, N.D.,Goldberg, P., Macphail, R.I., Giaccio, B., Praslov, N.D., 2007. Early Upper Palae-olithic in Eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans.Science 315, 223–226.

Bailey, S.E., Hublin, J.-J., 2006. Dental remains from Grottes de Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). Journal of Human Evolution 50, 485–508.

Balme, J., Morse, K.H., 2006. Shell beads and social behaviour in PleistoceneAustralia. Antiquity 80, 799–811.

Bednarik, R.G., 1997. The role of Pleistocene beads in documenting hominidcognition. Rock Art Research 14, 27–41.

Bednarik, R.G., 2003. A figurine from the African Acheulian. Current Anthropology44, 405–413.

Bednarik, R.G., 2005a. Middle Pleistocene beads and symbolism. Anthropos 100,537–552.

Bednarik, R.G., 2005b. More on Acheulean beads. Rock Art Research 22, 210–212.Boucher de Perthes, J., 1847. Antiquites celtiques et antediluviennes. Treuttel, Wurtz,

Paris.Bouzouggar, A., Barton, N., Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Collcutt, S., Higham, T.,

Hodge, E., Parfitt, S., Rhodes, E., Schwenninger, J.-L., Stringer, C., Turner, E.,Ward, S., Moutmir, A., Stambouli, A., 2007. 82,000-Year-old shell beads fromNorth Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behaviour.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 104, 9964–9969.

Caveleir, C., Feugeur, L., 1967. Carte Geologique detaillee de Versailles 1/50 000.Ministere de la Recherche et de l’Industrie Service Geologique National.

Chase, P.G., Dibble, H.L., 1987. Middle Palaeolithic symbolism: a review of currentevidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6, 293–296.

Churchill, S.E., Smith, H.F., 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian of Europe. Year-book of Physical Anthropology 43, 61–115.

Conard, N., 2005. An overview of the patterns of behavioural change in Africa andEurasia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. In: d’Errico, F., Backwell, L.(Eds.), From Tools to Symbols from Early Hominids to Humans. Wits UniversityPress, Johannesburg, pp. 294–332.

Conard, N., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humansand timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges.Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331–371.

Davidson, I., Noble, W., 1992. Why the first colonisation of the Australian region isthe earliest evidence of modern human behaviour. Archaeology in Oceania 27,135–142.

Derevianko, A.P., 2005. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition in Eurasia.Hypotheses and Facts. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography Press,Novosibirsk.

Dorigny, A., Solau, J.-L., Maucorps, J., Vatinel, M., Pomerol, C., 1983. Carte Geologiquedetaillee de Soissons 1/50 000. Ministere de la Recherche et de l’IndustrieService Geologique National.

d’Errico, F., 2003. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin ofbehavioural modernity. Evolutionary Anthropology 12, 188–202.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Lawson, G., Vanhaeren, M., Tillier, A.-M., Soressi, M.,Bresson, F., Maureille, B., Nowell, A., Lakarra, J., et al., 2003. Archaeologicalevidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music – an alternativemultidisciplinary perspective. Journal of World Prehistory 17, 1–70.

d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Vanhaeren, M., Van Niekerk, K., 2005. Nassariuskraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour inthe Middle Stone Age. Journal of Human Evolution 48, 3–24.

d’Errico, F., Nowell, A., 2000. A new look at the Berekhat Ram figurine: implicationsfor the origins of symbolism. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10, 123–167.

d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., 2007. Evolution or revolution? New evidence for theorigin of symbolic behaviour in and out of Africa. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 275–285.

d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., 2008. Earliest personal ornaments and their significancefor the origin of language debate. In: Knight, C., Botha, R. (Eds.), The Cradle ofHuman Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Wadley, L., 2008. Possible shell beads from the MiddleStone Age layers of Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science,doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.04.023.

d’Errico, F., Villa, P., 1997. Holes and grooves: the contribution of microscopy andtaphonomy to the problem of art origins. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 1–31.

Gautier, A., 1986. Une histoire de dents: les soi-disant incisives travaillees duPaleolithique moyen de Sclayn. Helinium 26, 177–181.

Haesaerts, P., Dupuis, C., 1986. Contribution a la stratigraphie des nappes alluvialesde la Somme et de l’Avre dans la region d’Amiens. In: Tuffreau, A., Somme, J.(Eds.), Chronostratigraphie et Facies Culturels du Paleolithique Inferieur etMoyen dans l’Europe du Nord-Ouest 22e Congres Prehistorique de France. SPFet AFEQ, Lille, pp. 171–186.

Harding, P., Bridgland, D., Keen, D., Rogerson, R., 1991. A Palaeolithic site redis-covered at Biddenham. Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal 19, 87–90.

Henshilwood, C., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Niekerk, K., Jacobs, Z., 2004. MiddleStone Age shell beads from South Africa. Science 304, 404.

Hinde, G.J., 1904. On the structure and affinities of the genus Porosphaera Stein-mann. Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society London.

Hovers, E., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2006. Now you see it, now you don’t – modern humanbehaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic. In: Hovers, E., Kuhn, S.L. (Eds.), Transitionsbefore the Transition: Evolution and Stability in the Middle Palaeolithic andMiddle Stone Age. Springer, New York, pp. 205–304.

Hublin, J.-J., 2000. Modern–nonmodern hominids interactions: a Mediterraneanperspective. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Pilbeam, D. (Eds.), The Geography of the Nean-dertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Pea-body Museum, Harvard, pp. 157–182.

Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. A MicrowearAnalysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Klein, R.G., 1989. Biological and behavioural perspectives on modern human originsin southern Africa. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Human Revolution:Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans.Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 529–546.

Kozlowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. La formation de l’Aurignacien en Europe. L’An-thropologie 104, 3–15.

Kuckenburg, M., 2001. Als der Mensch zum Schopfer wurde. An den Wurzeln derKultur. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.

Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., 2007. Palaeolithic ornaments: implications for cognition,demography and identity. Diogenes 214, 40–48.

Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Reese, D.S., 2001. Ornaments of the earliest Upper Palae-olithic: news insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 98, 7641–7646.

Leavesley, M.G., 2007. A shark-tooth ornament from Pleistocene Sahul. Antiquity 81,308–315.

Mania, D., Mania, U., 1988. Deliberate engravings on bone artifacts of Homo erectus.Rock Art Research 5, 91–107.

Marean, C.W., 1998. A critique of the evidence for scavenging by Neandertals andearly modern humans: new data from Kobeh Cave (Zagros Mountains, Iran) andDie Kelders Cave 1 Layer 10 (South Africa). Journal of Human Evolution 35, 111–136.

Marean, C.W., Assefa, Z., 1999. Zooarcheological evidence for the faunal exploitationbehaviour of Neanderthals and early humans. Evolutionary Anthropology 8,22–37.

Marshack, A., 1981. On Palaeolithic ochre and the early uses of color and symbol.Current Anthropology 22, 188–191.

Marshack, A., 1991. A Reply to Davidson on Mania and Mania. Rock Art Research 8,47–58.

McBrearty, S., Brooks, A.S., 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation ofthe origin of modern human behaviour. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 453–563.

Mellars, P., 1989. Technological changes across the Middle–Upper Palaeolithictransition: economic, social and cognitive perspective. In: Mellars, P., Stringer, C.(Eds.), The Human Revolution Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on theOrigins of Modern Humans. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 339–365.

Mellars, P., Gravina, B., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2007. Confirmation of Neanderthal/modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 3657–3662.

Nestler, H., 1961. Spongien aus der weiben Schreibkreide (Unt. Maastricht) der InselRugen (Ostee). Palaontologische Abhandlungen 1, 1–70.

Neumann, C., Wisshak, M., Bromley, R.G., 2008. Boring a mobile domicile: analternative to the conchicolous life habit. In: Wisshak, M., Tapanila, L. (Eds.),Current Developments in Bioerosion. Springer, New York, pp. 307–328.

Nielsen, K., 1929. Brunnich, Kalksvampe i Danmarks Senonium og Danium.Meddelelser fra Dansk Geologisk Forening 7, 323–342.

Oakley, K.P., 1965. Folklor of Fossils Part II. Antiquity 39, 117–125.Otte, M., Leotard, J.-M., Schneider, A.-M., Gautier, A., 1983. Fouilles aux grottes de

Sclayn (Namur). Helinium XXIII, 112–142.Rigollot, 1854. Memoire sur les instruments en silex trouves a Saint-Acheul, pres

Amiens. Rapports geologiques et archeologiques, Amiens.Shea, J., 2003. Neanderthals, competition, and the origin of modern human

behaviour in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 12.Smith, W.G., 1884. On a Palaeolithic floor at North-East London. Journal of the

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 13, 357–384.

S. Rigaud et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 36 (2009) 25–3434

Steguweit, L., 1999. Intentionelle Schnittmarken auf Tierknochen von Bilzingsleben:Neue lasermikroskopische Untersuchungen. Praehistoria Thuringica 3, 64–79.

Steinmann, G., 1878. Uber fossile Hydrozoen aus der Familie der Coryniden.Palaeontographica 25, 12–14.

Stolley, E., 1892. Die Kreide Schleswig-Holsteins. Inaugural Dissertation aus denMittheilungen aus dem Mineralogischen Institut der Universitat Kiel, Liepzig.

Stringer, C., 2002. Modern human origins: progress and prospects. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society London B 357, 563–579.

Stringer, C., Gamble, C., 1993. In search of the Neandertals. Thames and Hudson,London.

Taborin, Y., 2003. La mer et les premiers hommes modernes. In: Vandermeersch, B.(Ed.), Echange et diffusion dans la Prehistoire mediterraneenne. CTHS, Paris, pp.113–122.

Toms, H.S., 1932. An Early Bead Necklace Found at Higham, Kent.Tuffreau, A., Antoine, P., Lamotte, A., Marcy, J.-L., 2001. La fouille du gisement

Paleolithique inferieur et moyen du lotissement du ‘‘Prince Noir’’ rue de Cagny aSaint-Acheul (Amiens, Somme). In: CERP (Ed.), L’Acheuleen dans la vallee de laSomme et Paleolithique moyen dans le Nord de la France: donnees recentes.Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille, Lille, pp. 154–163.

Tuffreau, A., 1987. Le Paleolithique inferieur et moyen du nord de la France (Nordpas-de-Calais, Picardie) dans son cadre stratigraphique. These de Doctoratd’Etat es Lettres et Sciences Humaines. Lilles, Universite des Sciences et Tech-niques de la France, 609 pp.

Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography ofEurope revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33,1–24.

Vanhaeren, M., d’Errico, F., Stringer, C., James, S.L., Todd, J.A., Mienis, H.K., 2006.Middle Palaeolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. Science 312, 1785–1788.

Wadell, H., 1935. Volume, shape and roundness of quartz particles. Journal ofGeology 43, 250–280.

Wadley, L., 2001. What is cultural modernity? A general view and a South Africanperspective from Rose Cottage Cave. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11, 201–221.

Wilson, C.W., Farquharson, J., 1900. Geological Map of Bedfordshire 1/63 360.Geological Survey of England and Wales.

Wyatt, J., 1861. Flint implements in the drift in Bedfordshire. Note of theBedfordshire Architectural & Archaeological Society 10, 146–158.

Wyatt, J., 1862. On some further discoveries of flint implements in the Gravel nearBedford. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 18, 113–114.

Ziegert, H., 1995. Das neue Bild des Urmenschen. Uni-hh-Forschung 30, 9–15.Zilhao, J., 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: an archaeological perspective

on the origins of ‘‘Behavioural Modernity’’. Journal of Archaeological Research15, 1–54.

Zilhao, J., d’Errico, F., 2003. The chronology of the Aurignacian and transitionaltechnocomplexes. Where do we stand? In: Zilhao, J., d’Errico, F. (Eds.), TheChronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes Dating,Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Instituo Portuges de Arqueologia, Lisbon,pp. 313–349.

Zilhao, J., d’Errico, F., Bordes, J.G., Lenoble, A., Texier, J.P., Rigaud, J.P., 2006. Analysis ofAurignacian interstratification at the Chatelperronian-type site and implicationsfor the behavioural modernity of Neandertals. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, 12643–12648.