BOOK REVIEW

From Tools to Symbols. From Early Hominids to Modern Humans. In honour of Professor Phillip V. Tobias. By Francesco d’Errico & Lucinda Backwell (eds.). Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, 2005, 574 pp. ISBN 1-86814-417-8 (soft cover), 1-86814-434-8 (hard cover). Price: US$ 39.95 (soft cover), US$ 59.95 (hard cover).

The proceedings of a conference held 16–1 8 March, species, he argues that human technological innovation 2003, at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, requires “strong selective pressures” (p. 40), attributed to include 25 papers by participants, aiming to explore (xxiii) mitigating the risk of predation by Pleistocene carnivores “…the origins of technology and the human brain, and the known from the fauna at Swartkrans Member 3 (~1 ma), evolution of our species”, long-standing interests of Phillip where there is evidence of the early use of fire and the use Tobias. Also, (p. 1) “…to synthesize and debate results of of sharp instruments on faunal bone. current research on the origin of humankind”; to “…high- light results of collaborative French-South African research F. Joulian (pp. 52–81 ) addresses (p. 52) “…the question projects”; and especially, to emphasize multidisciplinary of human cultural modernity…on the basis of techniques, collaboration among scholars. The papers are organized representation, and semiosis of primate societies, whether in rough chronological order, with analyses examining our human or not.” “How did primates move from a functional oldest origins to those examining and comparing modern world, where action and accomplishment are equivalent, to a behaviours. With some overlap, several themes emerge: world where action and meaning have become separate,…” Seven papers address Miocene and Plio-Early Pleistocene ( p. 53)? Following Mauss and Leroi-Gourhan, his analysis origins of human physical form, cognitive behaviour and of chimpanzee tool-using suggests new approaches to the the formative Earlier Stone Age (ESA). Five address the analyses of lithic artefacts, cautioning however, that these later Middle Pleistocene to Later Pleistocene origins of artefacts are a taphonomically biased sample of past behav- anatomically modern humans (AMH), ‘Out of Africa’, iours. [When did chimpanzees acquire their tool technology and the problem of identifying cultural ‘modernity’ in the and ‘culture’? Is it of great antiquity, or more recent?] Middle Stone Age (MSA) and the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) developmental stages. Five consider technological P.V. Tobias (pp. 82–1 02) discusses evidence for be- behaviour per se, from a theoretical or methodological havioural capacities that may be gained from the study of viewpoint, considering origins or results. Six present new brain endocasts. He asks (pp. 91–92 ) whether enlarging archaeological evidence bearing on cognitive develop- brain size in humans was a selective adaptive advantage, ment. [I have inserted some comments.] and why? He then hypothesizes that increasing size en- hanced both adaptability and adaptation (contra Mather), Following brief introductions, N. Schlanger (pp. 9–37 ) which led to modern human culture. His 1973 discovery provides an engaging historical overview of the social con- of modern human speech areas seen on the endocasts of texts for disciplinary developments in prehistoric (Stone H. habilis supports early emergence of human language. Age) archaeology from the European (French) point of [Can one envisage a language without arbitrary symbols? view. In exploring relationships between South African and If one object is isolated from its surrounding contexts as French research traditions in the 1920’s–1 940’s, he consid- a ‘tree’, how many other objects are also ‘tree’? Com- ers that the development of local nomenclature was largely ing generations will discover whether Mather was right: (p. 11) “…a strategy of self affirmation…”, while studies whether our long scramble for a ‘technological fix’ has of lithic technology were “…a genuinely original South seriously limited our adaptability.] African perspective.” [Perhaps Africanists should have maintained ‘Stellenbosch’, rather than reverting to ‘Acheu- M.K. Bramford (pp. 103–1 20) summarizes the frag- lian’, given the much longer ESA record in Africa?] mentary evidence for vegetal remains from Laetoli, Oldu- vai, Sterkfontein and Floresbad, emphasizing that (p. 106): C.K. Brain (pp. 38–51 ) explores enabling factors “Identification of the fossil vegetation is the most direct (or ‘constraints’) that allowed (p. 38) “…the ability to approach to reconstructing the palaeoenvironment.” This translate intelligence and imagination into tangible tech- is the only paper directly addressing palaeoenvironmental nology.” Considering comparisons with other tool-making reconstruction as the context for behavioural changes.

DOI 10.3213/1612-1651-10090 © Africa Magna Verlag, Frankfurt M. Journal of African Archaeology Vol. 5 (1), 2007, pp. 151-154 151 Book Review

M. Pickford and B. Senut report (pp. 121–133) four intentionally-made or used artefacts from natural ‘pseudo-ar- ape-like teeth from the Miocene of Kenya, suggesting tefacts’. Evidence shows that the early hominid makers/users early differentiation of the ape and hominid lineages, and understood and manipulated the properties of bone to suit African origins for both. B. Senut (pp. 134–151) follows their desired ends. They conclude (p. 267) that early use of with a discussion of the place of Orrorin tugenensis (6.0– bone as a material shows that this “…need not imply modern 5.7 ma) in hominid evolution. She further challenges the cognitive abilities, and should not …be considered as a hall- idea of a ‘late’ split between hominoid and hominid lines, mark of behavioural modernity.” [One might argue, however, arguing that Miocene fossil evidence requires reconsid- that certain cognitive aspects of ‘modernity’ have deep time eration in the light of new discoveries. depth? Such as recognizing and selecting for desired proper- ties of different raw materials for different uses? Selection L.R. Berger (pp. 152–162) reports on new excava- for properties unrelated to reduction, such as colour, would tions undertaken in the Sterkfontein area, “The Cradle demonstrate a ‘value appreciation’ beyond utlitiarian ends.] of Humankind”, at Cooper D, Gladysvale and Plovers Lake 2, which include archaeological occurrences rang- H. Soodyall and T. Jenkins (pp. 276–293) provide a ing from Oldowan through Acheulian and MSA. Much summary of the contributions of genetics which have in- remains to be discovered beyond the ‘classic’ localities creased our understanding of human evolution: the origins of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans and Kromdraii. and movements of populations, interspecies relationships, and language. They emphasize support for the ‘Out-of-Afri- In a similar vein, the team of K. Kuman, R. Gibbon, ca’ hypotheses in the results from several analytic methods. H. Kempson, G. Longejans, J. Le Baron, L. Paollarolo and M. Sutton (pp. 163–182) report on results of surveys in N.J. Conrad (pp. 294–332) critically evaluates evi- Mapungubwe National Park, northernmost South Africa, dence for “behavioural changes” during the Middle and where terminal ESA, MSA, LSA and Iron Age locali- Late Pleistocene of Africa and Eurasia. He considers (p. ties were discovered. Although several terminal ESA oc- 296): “The key component of fully modern cultural be- currences (cf. Sangoan Technocomplex) are lagged and haviour is communication within a symbolically organised covered by Holocene sands, the terminal ESA underlying world and the ability to manipulate symbols in diverse MSA proper at Kudu Koppie might be comparable to the social contexts.” He postulates “gradual polygenetic ori- Charaman Industry of Zimbabwe. The authors caution that gins” for behavioural ‘modernity’, with a “…highly vari- (p. 178) “…classificatory schemes [are] for the archaeolo- able pattern of development…” in different areas. This gist’s convenience. The ‘transition’ from the final ESA to is not necessarily limited to AMH. Questioning whether the early MSA was a process during geological time and technology, subsistence strategies or settlement systems not an event.” Geoarcheology is providing information on provide useful signals of ‘modernity’, he emphasizes those palaeoclimatic changes and palaeoenvironments. aspects accepted as realms of ”ideology and symbolic com- munication” (p. 308 ff.): burials, pigment use, decorated D. Gommery (pp. 183–197) briefly considers evi- objects, personal adornments, figurative art, and musical dence from postcranial remains with reference to the instruments. He concludes that full ‘modernity’ was estab- evolution of bipedalism and manipulative capacities in lished across the Old World by ~40 ka, but possibly can be early time ranges, questioning the determinative value recognized somewhere as early as 80 ka. of either for early origins of technology. C.W. Marean (pp. 333–371) produces a potentially S. Prat (pp. 198–228), with reference to taxonomy, testable model to explain why AMH out-competed Nean- provides cladistic, morphological and metrical analyses derthals, leading to their extinction in Eurasia, and espe- of hominoid and hominid crania, concluding that H. cially in Later Pleistocene Europe. His focus (p. 337) is on habilis and H. rudolfensis are separate species; and that “hunting effectiveness”: differences in hunting efficiency, both belong within the Homo clad. killing ability, and risk of hunters’ trauma. Neanderthals were specialized predators with high risk, high return, but F. Thackery and J. Braga (pp. 229–237) briefly energetically costly strategies adapted to colder environ- report on new research from Kromdraii A and B, both ments. “Modern humans in Africa developed a low risk, including stone artefacts (formative ESA), with data regular return strategy similar to modern tropical hunter- on dating the deposits. Hominid remains assigned to gatherers in arid environments.…” that provided greater Paranthropus robustus come only from Kromdraii B. adaptive behavioural flexibility when they entered new ‘Who’ made the artefacts remains the question. areas (p. 357). [Testing the model will require consideration of the palaeoenvironments of Northern Africa and the Horn L. Backwell and F. d’Errico in “The origin of bone tool compared with those to the north. I agree wholeheartedly technology…” (pp. 238–275) examine purported ‘bone tools’ with Marean’s argument that Middle Stone Age (MSA) from Swartkrans, Sterkfontein and Olduvai, emphasizing should be used as a developmental stage term throughout new analytic techniques and experimentation to differentiate the African continent, rather than ‘Middle Palaeolithic’.]

152 Journal of African Archaeology Vol. 5 (1), 2007