The Middle Stone Ag , symbolic material culture and the origins … · 1 The Middle Stone Ag©e , symbolic material culture and the origins of language Christopher Henshilwood1,2

1

© The Middle Stone Age, symbolic material

culture and the origins of language

Christopher Henshilwood1,2 & Benoit Dubreuil31.Institute for Archaeology, History, Culture & Religion, University of Bergen, Norway

2.Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South

Africa

3.Department of Philosophy, Université du Québec à Montréal

2

ORIGIN OF ALLORIGIN OF ALL

HOMO SAPIENSHOMO SAPIENS

LIES IN AFRICALIES IN AFRICA

200, 000 yr +

3

Omo Omo 1 & 21 & 2

195 ka195 ka

••Found by RichardFound by Richard

LeakeyLeakey’’s team ins team in

19671967

••Now re-datedNow re-dated

Omo KibishOmo Kibish

4

H. sapiens H. sapiens idaltuidaltu

160 ka160 ka

• Found in Herto,

Ethiopia by Tim White

and team

• Two adults and a child

5

c. 35 000 yrs ?c. 35 000 yrs ?

Into southern AsiaInto southern Asia

c. 65 c. 65 –– 60 000 yrs 60 000 yrs

25

6

THE SYMBOLIC EXPLOSIONTHE SYMBOLIC EXPLOSION

IN EUROPE c. 35 kaIN EUROPE c. 35 ka

7

This behavioral breakthrough (in Europe) isThis behavioral breakthrough (in Europe) isthought by some to correspond to increasedthought by some to correspond to increasedcognitive sophistication, the manipulation ofcognitive sophistication, the manipulation ofsymbols, symbols, and the origin of languageand the origin of language

(e.g., White, 1982; Mellars & Stringer, 1989; Diamond, 1992; Byers, 1994; Mithen,1994, 1996; Klein, 1995; but see Kay et al., 1998)

We believe that the model of the We believe that the model of the ‘‘‘‘humanhumanrevolutionrevolution’’’’ is fatally flawed is fatally flawed

McBrearty & Brooks, 2000

The Revolution that WasnThe Revolution that Wasn’’tt

The

MIDDLE STONE

AGE

In Africa

c. 280 – 30 ka

Apollo 11Apollo 11

Hollow RockHollow Rock

Peers CavePeers CaveBlombosBlombos

SibuduSibudu

STILL BAY SITESSTILL BAY SITES

x 5x 5

c. 77 - 71 kac. 77 - 71 ka

300 km

Diepkloof RSDiepkloof RS Recent OSL dating

Jacobs et al 2008 Science

SIBUDU DIEPKLOOF ROCK SHELTER

BLOMBOS CAVE APOLLO 11

STILL BAY SITES

Foliate bifacial

points (hafting)Henshilwood et al, 2001. JHE

Rigaud et al 2006. PaleovolWadley 2007 JHE

Villa et al 2008 JHE

Some SBSome SB All SBAll SBStill Bay c. 77 Still Bay c. 77 –– 71 ka 71 ka

(Symbolic?) Material Culture (Symbolic?) Material Culture

End & circular scrapersHenshilwood et al, 2001. JHE

Ochre processing & useHenshilwood et al, 2001. JHE

Henshilwood et al 2009 JHE

Wadley 2007 JHE

Exotic (non-local) raw

material useHenshilwood et al, 2001. JHE

Wadley 2007 JHE


Still Bay c. 77 Still Bay c. 77 –– 71 ka 71 ka

Bone toolsHenshilwood et al 2002 JHE

d’Errico & Henshilwood. 2007 JHE

Shell beads

Symbolic Material Culture?Symbolic Material Culture?

Some SBSome SB All SBAll SB

Afrolittorina africana

d’Errico et al 2008. JAS

Nassarius kraussianus

Henshilwood et al 2004 Science

Abstract engravings

Henshilwood et al 2002 Science

Henshilwood et al 2009 JHE


Hunting technologyHunting technology

Hafted bifacial points Hafted bone tools


SubsistenceSubsistence

Henshilwood et al 2001 JAS

APAPPOCPOC

AAAAHAAHAA

B1CB1C

KLPKLP

KKHKKH

DRSDRS

MONMON

KRKRPPPPNBCNBC

BPBPPARPAR HPHP

OAKOAKHRHR

WKWK

KPKP

HRSHRS

SIBSIB

UMHUMHRCCRCC SEHSEH MOSMOS

HASHAS

NTNTMLKMLK

BCBC

CHCH

LIMPOPO

VAAL

ORANGE

HOWIESONS POORTHOWIESONS POORT

SITESSITES

x 30x 30

c. 65 - 59 kac. 65 - 59 ka

300 km

Recent OSL dating

Jacobs et al 2008 Science

SIBUDU KLASIES RIVER

KLEIN KLIPHUISAPOLLO 11

HOWIESONS POORT SITES

Backed segmentsWurz & Lombard 2007JAH

Wurz 2000 PhDWadley 2007 JHE

Lombard & Clark 2008 BAR

Some HPSome HP All HPAll HPHowiesons Poort c. 65 Howiesons Poort c. 65 –– 60 ka 60 ka

(Symbolic?) Material Culture (Symbolic?) Material Culture

End & circular scrapersWurz 2000 PhD

Ochre processing & useHenshilwood 2008 SAAB

Wadley 2007 JHE

Exotic raw material useHenshilwood et al, 2001. JHE

Wadley 2007 JHE


Bone toolsBackwell 2007 JAS

Engraved bone

d’Errico & Henshilwood. 2007. JHE

Symbolic Material Culture?Symbolic Material Culture?

Some HPSome HP All HPAll HP

Abstract engravings

(Ostrich egg shell)

Rigaud et al 2006 Paleovol

Howiesons Poort c. 65 Howiesons Poort c. 65 –– 60 ka 60 ka

Lombard & Pargeter 2008 JAS


Hunting technologyHunting technology

Bone tipped spear

Bow & arrow?


SubsistenceSubsistence

Clark & Plug 2008 JHE

ARID

TROPICAL

RAINFORESTS

TROPICAL

SAVANNAH

ARID

MEDITERRANEAN

Lake Bosumtwi

Lake Tanganyika

Lake Malawi

North African sites (Aterian)

– up to 100 ka or more

Still Bay &

Howiesons Poort

MEDITERRANEAN

What is

the link

between

North &

South?

22

BEYOND 78 000 YEARS

IS THERE EARLIER

EVIDENCE FOR

SYMBOLIC MATERIAL

CULTURE?

Cape AgulhasCape Agulhas

Blombos

Cave

CapeCape

TownTown

Western CapeWestern Cape

South AfricaSouth Africa

Atlantic oceanAtlantic ocean

Indian OceanIndian Ocean

De Hoop

Nature Reserve

24

Blombos Blombos CaveCave

Blombos Cave Blombos Cave –– Ages for occupations Ages for occupationsAges

Still Bay

M1 & M2

M3M3

Phases

Henshilwood et al, 2004, Science

Jacobs et al. 2003. Journal of Human Evolution

Jacobs et al 2006. JHE

Blombos Cave Blombos Cave –– M3 Phase: 100 ka + M3 Phase: 100 ka +

Patella barbara

OchreOchre

Ochre grinder

Ochre layer

110 ka

100 ka

100 ka

upper grindstoneupper grindstone

Ochre crayonOchre crayon

Layer CILayer CI

Blombos Cave Blombos Cave –– M3 Phase: c. 100 ka + M3 Phase: c. 100 ka +

Henshilwood, d’Errico & Watts (2009) JHE

Blombos Cave, Phase M3, layer CI, ca 99,000 BPBlombos Cave Blombos Cave –– M3 Phase: c. 100 ka + M3 Phase: c. 100 ka +

Layer CILayer CI


Blombos Cave Blombos Cave –– M3 Phase: c. 100 ka + M3 Phase: c. 100 ka +

Fan shape


Layer CI

Continuity or discontinuity?Continuity or discontinuity?

Symbolically mediated behaviours in the StillSymbolically mediated behaviours in the Still

Bay and Howiesons Poort Industries of southernBay and Howiesons Poort Industries of southern

Africa Africa –– and before and after and before and after

100 ka +

What can we infer about language

evolution from the archaeological record ?

?

32

What can we infer about language

evolution from the archaeological record ?

Three problems:

• the archaeological record is scarce

• archaeology provides merely indirect evidence

• competing views exist about what language is

33

Is there a language faculty ?

What does it consist in ?

What is specific to language ?

What features of language canbe explained by more generalfeatures of human brain,cognition, and culture?

34

A large part of language must be explain

in connection with social cognition

Two social-cognitive abilities:

• The ability to share the attention with others and toengage in joint projects at the foundation of languageacquisition.

• Higher theory of mind and perspective taking explainmuch peculiarity of langage development later in infancy.

The implications for the evolution of language will

depend on how much of language you think that

social cognition explains.

35

Archaeology reveals something about

the evolution of social cognition

?Social

cognition

Nonhuman primates can understand the “intentions” of others

(they understand that actions are directed by goals).

36

Social cognition is sophisticated in

nonhuman primates

37

Social categorisation is also

sophisticated…

38


sophisticated…

39


sophisticated…

40


sophisticated…

Nonhuman primates do not engage as spontaneouslyin joint attention and shared intentionality as humanchildren.

• This is due to a motivational difference and, maybe, acognitive difference.

• They may be incapable of understanding that others’goal-directed actions are directed at their attentionalstates.

41

But, there are differences between humans

and nonhuman primates…

Nonhuman primates have problems understanding

complex mental states and perspective taking.

“When baboons cross from one island to another at the peak of the

flood, they typically choose the shortest and shallowest route. If the

flood is large, however, they are often forced to wade or swim for

hundreds of meters. Young infants are carried ventrally and can be

completely submerged for several minutes. Several years before we

began our study, we were told, Sylvia’s [a female baboon] baby had

drowned on a long crossing. [..] [Sylvia] acted as if she believed that,

as long as her head was above water, everyone else’s head must be

above water too.” (Cheney and Seyfarth 2007)

42



Human children only develop an explicit

understanding of complex mental states around 4-5

years of age.

43



These changes must have had an important impact on human

behavior and on the social organization.

Can they explain the transition to modern Homo sapiens?

44

Human evolution coincided with major

changes in social cognition

??

Shared intentionality is not

only at the foundation of

language, but also of

cooperation.

We find evidence of

increased cooperation

long before the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.

45

Archaic humans already had sophisticated

social cognition. How do we know?

?

Large-game hunting in itself implies cooperation

And it only makes sense only in a context of

extensive meat sharing

46

Evidence of large-game hunting in Homo

heidelbergensis (700-300 kyr)

Homo heidelbergensis presents strong evidence of a

modern-like organisation of life history, including

prolonged infancy.

Modern organisation of life history depends on cooperative

breeding and on important intergenerational transfers.

Brain size, body size, and dental development in Homo

heidelbergensis are getting close to what they are in

Homo sapiens.

47

Evidence of cooperative breeding in

Homo heidelbergensis (700-300 kyr)

Robson and Kaplan (PNAS, 2002)48



It is almost impossible to imagine how hominins

could cooperate to such an extent without being

capable of shared intentionality.

49



The evolution of Homo sapiens might havecoincided the evolution of higher theory of mind

Archaic humans might not have had the

same socio-cognitive abilities as modern

humans

!

Personal ornaments have nostraightforward utilitarian use.

They are typically used tosignal social statuses.

What does it imply at thecognitive level?

What does personal ornamentation tells us

about social cognition?

Neither are they “superordinate” categories—categories ofcategories—which too might implicate executivefunctions. So, although the Blombos beads implycategory formation process, they did not, we believe,require executive functions and enhanced workingmemory.” (Coolidge and Wynn 2009)

“The kinds of social categories impliedby the Blombos beads (I belong togroup A, as opposed to group B, withwhom we exchange spouses; groupC with whom we fight; group D whoare occasional but unreliable allies,etc.) are not abstract, and do notcombine elements from distinctcategories.

What does personal ornamentation tells us

about social cognition?

Nonhuman primates are already

capable of complex social

categorisation.

Earlier members of the genus

Homo were also certainly

capable of it.

Still, neither made use of personal

ornaments

Personal ornamentation implies more than

category formation

Group

C

Group

B

Group

A

Individuals do not only need to

categorize group membership.

Individuals also need to know

that other individuals

recognize the use of symbolic

markers as an indication of

group membership.

What is missing for personal ornaments to

become relevant?

Group

B

Group

A

One needs to make sure that

one’s representation of group

membership coincides with the

representation of others.

One needs higher theory of mind

to recognize that the meanings

of symbols are shared.

This task goes beyond simple social

categorisation

Malafouris (2008: 406) argues that Blombos beads

provide stronger evidence of “self-awareness”

than of symbolism.

Wynn and Coolidge (2007: 88) argue that, at a

minimum, personal ornaments indicate the

presence of “theory of mind” and of a capacity to

pay attention to one’s appearance and personal

identity.

Symbolism or concern for one’s

appearance?

For Coolidge and Wynn (2009: 242) “Blombos

beads […] did not […] require executive functions

and enhanced working memory.”

By contrast, we think that being concerned with

one’s appearance implies the highest level of

theory of mind and is highly demanding in terms

of executive functions and working memory.


appearance?

Apes do not use artefacts to “improve their

appearance.

There is no real evidence of a concern for

appearance before modern Homo sapiens.

Young human children care little about how they

look.


appearance?

Being concerned with one’s appearance implies

higher theory of mind.

One way to know that is to think of those human

beings which are the most concerned by their

appearance.

Who are they…?


appearance?

…teenagers!


appearance?

Social intelligence in

humans develops

late into

adolescence.

It is closely related to

the maturation of the

executive functions

of the brain.


appearance?

Gogtay et al. (PNAS, 2002)

A concern for one’s appearance is good evidence

of higher theory of mind and social cognition.

Higher theory of mind is good evidence in favor of

executive functions and working memory in

general.

It is also good evidence of language...

Conclusion

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

Claire LefebvreClaire Lefebvre

Institut Institut des sciences des sciences cognitivescognitives

Université du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal

Documents

The Middle Stone Ag , symbolic material culture and the origins … · 1 The Middle Stone Ag©e , symbolic material culture and the origins of language Christopher Henshilwood1,2