No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
A “language-free” explanation for differences between the European Middle and Upper Paleolithic Record
Abstract
This book is the first to focus on the African origins of human language. It explores the origins of language and culture 250,000-150,000 years ago when modern humans evolved in Africa. Scholars from around the world address the fossil, genetic, and archaeological evidence and critically examine the ways it has been interpreted. The book also considers parallel developments among Europe's Neanderthals and the contrasting outcomes for the two species. Following an extensive introduction contextualizing and linking the book's topics and approaches, fifteen chapters bring together many of the most significant recent findings and developments in modern human origins research. The fields represented by the authors include genetics, biology, behavioural ecology, linguistics, archaeology, cognitive science, and anthropology.
This handbook is currently in development, with individual articles publishing online in advance of print publication. At this time, we cannot add information about unpublished articles in this handbook, however the table of contents will continue to grow as additional articles pass through the review process and are added to the site. Please note that the online publication date for this handbook is the date that the first article in the title was published online. For more information, please read the site FAQs.
Archaeologists frequently use ethnographic data on recent hunter-gatherers to interpret and analyse data from prehistoric groups. This use of ethnographic data is not limited to the archaeology of Homo sapiens, but also to that of archaic hominins. In this article, I examine how archaeologists use ethnographic data in their research on Neanderthals. An analysis of articles published in five international journals in the ‘genomic era’ of Neanderthal research (post-2010) shows that while not ubiquitous, many archaeologists use ethnographic data to interpret a range of Neanderthal behaviours. Several key patterns in the use of ethnographic data are identified, including limited engagement with ethnographic sources, the frequent use of data to substantiate a claim, or ‘fill in the gaps’ of a sparse archaeological record, and little acknowledgement of the problems or limitations of the application of these data to Neanderthal contexts. These practices may reflect the current trend in Neanderthal research which emphasises similarities with early Homo sapiens, and takes for granted the appropriateness of analogues with recent foragers. I argue that the prevailing use of ethnographic data does not account adequately for biological and cognitive differences between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. I demonstrate this using the example of the effects of Neanderthal biology on demography and mobility and provide some recommendations for best practice of the use of ethnographic data in Neanderthal archaeological research.
Neanderthal language abilities cannot be directly observed, but indirect evidence is available in their anatomy, archeology, and DNA. Neanderthal anatomy shows possible speech adaptations, and their archeology contains enough indicators of behavioral modernity, including symbols and ornaments, to conclude that their minds could handle symbolic communication. Neanderthal DNA, finally, indicates both that they possessed some of the language-relevant genes found in modern humans and that they could and did have children with modern humans. From the consilience of evidence from anatomy, archeology, and DNA, one can conclude that some language abilities, if not necessarily full modern syntactic language, were present in Neanderthals.
Since the 1990s, archaeological publications concerned with Palaeolithic personal ornaments have diversified. This proliferation has resulted in an intense exploration of the multiple roles, whether symbolic, cultural or social, that these items might have played in prehistoric groups. As a result of this process, there is now a broad consensus that these body adornments are important for exploring the origins of cognitive, artistic and symbolic behavior from an evolutionary perspective. This view contrasts with the conceptualization of Palaeolithic ornaments prevalent during the greater part of the twentieth century. At that time, these objects were rarely considered in debates concerning human evolution, art and symbolism. To explain this shift in the understanding of beads, pendants and other similar artifacts, we explore in this paper the history and the epistemology of the concept of ‘ornament’ in the field of Palaeolithic archaeology. In particular, we analyse the factors underlying why the same kinds of objects have been historically described in very diverse ways. We conclude by pointing out some of the epistemological challenges posed by the current revalorization of personal ornaments.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.